George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 
COLONEL  FLOWERS 


Digitized 

by  the  Internet  Archive 

i 

in  2015 

https://archive.org/details/sketches01wats 


THOS.   E.  WATSON 

(From  His  Latest  Photograph) 


SKETCHES : 


Historical,  Literary,  Biographical, 
Economic,  Etc. 


By  THOS.  E.  WATSON 

Author  of  "  The  Story  of  France,"  "Napoleon,"  "  Life  and  Times  of 
Thomas  Jefferson,"  ''Bethany,"  "  Waterloo,"  "Life  and  Times 
of  Andrew  Jackson,"  etc.,  etc. 


ILLUSTRATED 

(THIRD  EDITION) 


PUBLISHED  BY 
THE  JEFFERSONIAN  PUB.  CO. 

THOMSON,  GEORGIA 
1916 


Copyrighted 
BY  THE  AUTHOR 
1916 


THE  FLOWERS  COLLECTION 


Introductory — Chas.  Bayne. 


Eandom  Reminiscences  of  Toombs  and  Stephens   3 

The  Wise  Man  and  the  Silly  King  ..   23 

A  Gross  Insult  to  the  Scotch   31 

Robert  Toombs :  A  Life  Sketch ;  Some  Anecdotes,  and 

His  Last  Public  Speech   45 

The  Glory  That  Was  Greece   66 

Edgar  A"  Poe   81 

Wit  and  Humor    84 

The  Egyptian  Sphinx  and  the  Xegro   95 

The  Passing  of  Lucy  and  Rollo   129 

Concerning  Abraham  Lincoln  and  the  Civil  War   134 

The  Struggle  of  Church  Against  State  in  France   149 

With  Brisbane  at  Delmonico's   157 

The  Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy  and  Politics   173 

The  Oddities  of  the  Great   184 

Pages  Lost  from  a  Book   189 

Tolstoy  and  the  Land   195 

The  Stewardship    200 

The  Reign  of  the  Technicality   203 

Concerning  Money    208 

A  Bitter  Attack  Upon  the  South   214 

"Take  the  Children"    223 

"Where  Am  I  At?"   229 

The  Man  and  the  Land   231 

Is  the  Study  of  Latin  and  Greek  Necessary  to  the 

Practical  Lawyer?   ,   251 

As  to  Orators  and  Oratory    258 

Socialism  and  One  of  Its  Great  Books......   261 

Common  Sense  Education    273 

Some  Aftermath  of  the  Civil  War  (Stephens,  Toombs, 

Ben  Hill,  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  the  Colquitt  Campaign 

of  1880,  Etc.)   278 

.Teasing  a  Single  Taxer    293 

Paper  Money  and  John  Law   300 

The  Dartmouth  College  Decision   305 

Thos.  E.  Watson's  Tribute  to  the  Late  Sam  Jones  on 

His  Fiftieth  Birthday   .-.   310 

Our  American  Judicial  Oligarchy    315 

Answer  to  Booker  Washington  _   321 


350741 


Introductory 

CHAS.  BAYNE 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  a  Frenchman  has  written  the 
best  "History  of  English  Literature,"  a  British  subject  has 
written  the  best  history  of  the  "American  Commonwealth," 
and  an  American  has  written  the  best  and  most  popular  "Story 
of  France,"  and  "Life  of  Napoleon."  No  man  who  is  familiar 
with  the  facts  will  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  place  Hon.  Thos. 
E.  Watson  in  the  front  rank  of  modern  historians,  for  in  doing 
so  he  would  merely  accept  the  general  verdict. 

There  is  nothing  doubtful  about  the  story,  which  I  have  on 
the  best  authority,  that  in  1904  an  American  traveller,  visiting 
in  Paris,  went  into  a  book- store  and  asked  to  be  shown  the 
best  biography  of  Napoleon  he  had  in  his  shop.  Without  a 
moment's  hestitation,  he  selected  from  the  dozens  of  volumes 
dealing  with  the  great  Corsican,  the  familiar  red-bound  book 
Watson's  "Life  of  Napoleon,"  and  handed  it  out  to  the  pur- 
chaser.   His  name  was  L.  W.  Stephens,  of  Columbia,  Mo. 

(The  same  thing  happened  to  Congressman  Burnett,  of  Ala- 
bama, Judge  H.  D.  D.  Twiggs,  of  Savannah,  Ga.,  to  J.  A. 
Copeland,  of  Greensboro,  Ga. — and  others,  since  1904.) 

The  man  who  accomplished  such  a  feat  as  the  writing  of 
that  book — a  book  regarded  in  France  as  the  best  history  of 
her  Emperor — could  be  no  ordinary  man,  from  any  point  of 
view ;  but  when  we  consider  the  fact  that  it  was  comparatively 
late  in  his  career  that  Mr.  Watson  turned  his  attention  to  the 
writing  of  history,  and  had  already  won  a  high  place  in  the 
making  of  history  along  entirely  different  lines,  the  achieve- 
ment becomes  all  the  more  remarkable  and  our  admiration  all 
the  greater. 

"The  style  is  the  man,"  say  the  French,  and  there  is  a  strong 
personality  running,  like  a  silver  ribbon,  through  all  of  his 
work,  whether  on  the  stump,  in  the  halls  of  Congress,  before 
the  bar,  or  in  the  quiet  of  his  study,  which  leaves  an  unmis- 
takable impress.  In  his  graphic  recital  of  the  thrilling  story 
of  France,  in  presenting  the  rise,  reign  and  fall  of  the  most 
splendid  figure  in  the  history  of  modern  Europe,  in  his  por- 
trayal of  the  life  and  times  of  the  founder  of  Jeffersonian 
democracy  or  the  rugged  strength  of  "Old  Hickory,"  there  is 
the  same  vigor  and  refreshing  charm.  The  humor,  the  sub- 
dued pathos,  the  tender  sentiment,  and,  above  all,  the  faithful- 
ness to  life  with  which  he  drew  conditions  as  they  existed  in 


350741 


ii 


INTRODUCTORY. 


the  old  South  and  gave  the  world  in  his  novel,  "Bethany,"  the 
life-story  of  typical  characters  whose  memory  he  loved,  lent 
that  work  a  compelling  force  and  a  native  grace  which  could 
have  come  only  from  the  heart. 

In  this  connection,  I  recall  an  incident  which  I  can  never 
forget.  I  betray  no  confidence  in  saying  that  when  the  MS. 
of  this  novel  was  submitted  to  the  publisher  he  suggested  that 
what  the  public  wanted  was  the  kind  of  novel  in  which  the 
hero  and  heroine  get  married  and  "live  happily  ever  after." 
"Bethany"  was  not  that  sort  of  book.  It  was  a  leaf  torn  from 
the  great  epic  of  the  South.  Along  with  exquisite  sentiment, 
it  was  shot  through  with  the  red  ruin  of  war  and  the  remorse- 
less workings  of  fate.  The  author  painted  the  picture  as  it 
was  in  actual  life — climax  and  all — and  he  declined  absolutely 
to  change  the  logical  ending  into  something  that  would  win 
applause  from  the  groundlings.  "Because,"  he  said  to  me, 
with  a  tremor  in  the  falling  inflection,  "in  real  life,  it  doesn't 
happen  that  way." 

I  have  not  enquired  of  late  as  to  the  sale  of  "Bethany,"  but 
I  do  know  that  it  presents  a  picture  of  the  old  South  which 
the  world  should  not  willingly  let  die. 

And  yet  Watson,  the  historian — Watson,  the  literary  man — 
belongs,  as  I  have  said,  to  the  later  phase.  That  he  had  been 
"hiving  wisdom  with  the  studious  years"  long  before  he  sat 
down  to  write  history  was  very  evident  when  he  once  settled 
himself  to  that  task  and  turned  out  with  marvelous  facility 
the  histories  which  gave  him  an  international  reputation.  To 
have  written  the  "Life  of  Napoleon,"  with  its  mass  of  incidents 
and  its  striking  generalizations,  in  three  months'  time — to 
have  accomplished  the  same  thing  in  practically  the  same 
length  of  time  with  his  other  historical  works — would  argue 
long  years  of  intimate  familiarity  with  the  subject  before  he 
put  pen  to  paper,  just  as  Goethe  carried  "Faust"  in  his  head 
for  twenty  years,  until,  as  he  said,  "it  became  pure  gold." 

But  it  was  as  a  lawyer,  an  orator,  as  the  champion  of  the 
rights  of  the  people  against  the  encroachments  of  corporate 
wealth  and  power,  that  he  first  won  a  place  in  the  history  of 
American  politics  and  statesmanship.  He  had  been  the  per- 
sonal friend  of  Toombs  and  Stephens  and  Hill,  and  the  men 
of  light  and  leading  of  that  time,  and  he  had  learned  much 
from  them.  He  preserved,  none  the  less,  a  strong  individuality 
which  promptly  impressed  itself  upon  public  life  when  he 
entered  the  Georgia  legislature  in  the  early  eighties.  Accept- 
ing and  advocating  the  principles  of  the  Farmers'  Alliance, 
he  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1890,  from  the  Tenth  district. 
His  canvass  of  the  district  in  1892  was  an  epoch  in  Georgia 


INTRODUCTORY. 


iii 


politics.  His  power  as  a  stump  speaker  was  never  shown  to 
better  advantage,  and  it  is  admitted  that  on  the  stump  he  is 
one  of  the  most  persuasive  men  ever  produced  in  Georgia. 
The  best  traditions  of  this  form  of  debate  were  revived,  and 
there  was  an  added  vigor  which  had  never  been  seen  before. 
Perhaps  no  higher  tribute  could  be  paid  the  man  who  fought 
his  battles  in  splendid  isolation  in  those  days  than  to  say  that 
many  who  were  his  opponents,  politically,  remained  his  per- 
sonal friends  and  admirers,  and  that  many  of  the  principles 
for  which  he  contended  then  have  since  been  enacted  into  law 
or  have  been  adopted  by  the  leading  parties  of  the  present 
time.  What  was  regarded  as  radical  then,  is  looked  upon  as 
essentially  conservative  in  these  piping  times  of  rate  bills  and 
the  agitation  of  an  income  and  inheritance  tax. 

His  career  in  Congress,  where  he  secured  the  first  appropria- 
tion for  rural  free  delivery,  and  among  graver  matters,  gave  a 
phrase  to  the  vernacular  in  citing  the  remark  of  Mr.  Cobb  of 
Alabama,  "Mr.  Speaker,  where  am  I  at?" — this  part  of  his 
career,  together  with  his  canvass  of  the  country  after  his  nomi- 
nation for  the  vice-presidency  on  the  ticket  with  Mr.  Bryan 
and  his  nomination  for  the  presidency  by  the  Populist  Party 
in  1904,  need  not  be  enlarged  upon  here.  It  is  a  part  of  his 
life  which  is  known  of  all  men. 

But  this  article  concerns  itself  with  the  real  Watson,  whom 
few  men  know,  for  no  man  can  really  know  him  who  has  not 
seen  him  and  enjoyed  his  delightful  companionship  in  his 
home. 

His  fifty  years  sit  lightly  upon  him.  The  "bright  red  poll" 
to  which  the  funny  men  on  certain  newspapers  make  frequent 
allusions  is  in  reality  auburn  as  yet  unstreaked  with  gray.  It 
is  in  the  strong  lines  of  his  mobile  and  sensitive  face  that  time 
and  application  have  left  their  imprint.  His  slender  figure  is 
of  whalebone,  as  evidenced  by  every  elastic  step.  Walking 
and  riding  are  his  tonic.  Mounted  on  his  favorite  horse,  raised 
and  trained  by  himself,  he  gallops  over  the  hills  and  fields 
which  surround  his  home,  or  else,  with  the  crisp  air  of  a 
winter  day  sending  the  blood  tingling  through  his  veins,  he 
strikes  a  pace,  on  foot,  along  the  highways  and  byways  which 
keeps  the  amateur  pedestrian  a  bad  second  in  Indian  file. 
In  this  way  he  preserves  a  constitution  which  enables  him  to 
undergo  the  severe  mental  and  physical  strain  to  which  he 
subjects  himself,  and  on  these  walks  he  finds  something  more 
than  a  casual  interest,  not  in  botany  and  ornithology,  perhaps, 
but  in  birds  and  flowers. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  describe  the  animation  which 
shines  in  his  countenance,  the  light  that  kindles  in  his  gray 


INTRODUCTORY. 


eyes,  when  the  conversation  drifts  to  some  subject  which  he  is 
particularly  interested  at  the  time — and  I  say  "at  the  time" 
advisedly,  for  he  takes  all  knowledge  for  his  province,  and 
nothing  which  interests  humanity  can  fail  to  be  of  interest  to 
him.  Whether  it  be  in  describing  the  present  situation  in 
France,  clarifying  it  with  epigrammatic  phrase  and  abundant 
information,  or  assailing  the  Dartmouth  College  decision  as 
being  bad  law  and  the  parent  of  laws  still  worse,  his  indexed 
memory  yields  the  needed  facts  with  promptness  and  precision. 
During  an  acquaintance  of  eighteen  years,  I  have  never  seen 
him  use  a  note  in  making  a  public  speech,  and  his  great 
lecture  on  "The  South"  has  never  been  reduced  to  writing. 

The  Watson  family  is  of  English  descent.  Coming  from 
along  the  southern  banks  of  the  Tweed,  they  settled  first  in 
North  Carolina  and  afterwards  in  Georgia.  As  far  as  the 
records  extend  they  were  landed  proprietors,  and  this  inherited 
love  of  the  soil,  coupled  with  a  desire  to  possess  the  very  land 
occupied  by  his  pioneer  ancestors,  has  led  the  subject  of  this 
sketch  to  acquire  the  broad  acres  over  which  he  is  lord  and 
master.  In  his  possession  is  a  royal  grant  dated  1760,  signed 
by  Charles  Watson  as  clerk  of  the  royal  council.  The  land 
thus  conveyed  is  now  in  the  possession  of  Thomas  E.  Watson, 
lineal  descendant  of  Charles  Watson,  who  countersigned  the 
royal  grant.  So,  also  is  the  city  residence  in  which  he  spent 
the  most  active  twenty  years  of  his  life,  and  many  thousands 
of  acres  besides.  His  estate  in  Virginia,  lying  in  the  Blue 
Ridge  Mountains,  is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  in  the  State. 

But  it  is  here  in  Georgia  that  Mr.  Watson  is  most  at  home. 
On  a  summit  which  commands  a  view  of  the  blue  Piedmont 
foot-hills,  with  Graves'  mountain  silhouetted  against  the  sky- 
line, and  the  prosperous  little  city  of  Thomson  nestling,  a 
mile  away,  beyond  the  grove,  stands  the  imposing  colonial 
home  where  the  distinguished  statesman  and  litteratuer  has 
set  up  his  household  gods. 

Everything  that  ingenuity  and  competent  means  can  con- 
tribute to  the  comfort  of  himself,  his  family  and  the  guests 
who  are  constantly  gathering  at  his  hospitable  board  is  to  be 
found  under  this  spacious  roof.  Every  detail  bespeaks  the 
culture  and  refinement  of  the  typical  Southern  gentleman, 
and  his  family. 

Thomson  has  outgrown  its  swaddling  clothes  and  has  estab- 
lished its  own  electric  light  plant,  so  the  Watson  residence  is 
a  blaze  of  light  within  and  without.  The  fine  arts  are  repre- 
sented in  all  their  phases.  And  then  there  are  books  until  the 
brain  grows  weary.  How  many  thousands  of  them  there  are 
Mr.  Watson  himself  does  not  know.    He  is  too  busy  reading 


INTRODUCTORY. 


them  and  writing  them  to  merely  stop  and  count  them.  They 
are  not  only  scattered  about  the  study,  with  that  delightful 
abandon  which  betokens  constant  use,  but  they  overflow  into 
the  hallway  and  into  the  guest  rooms  and  into  the  more  formal 
precincts  of  the  drawing  room.  They  are  everywhere — big 
books  and  little  books,  old  books  and  new  books.  Swinburne 
lies  cheek  by  jowl  with  Adam  Smith,  and  Don  Quixote  leans 
his  sorrowful  figure  against  the  Beacon  Biographies — the 
"Life  of  Thos.  Jefferson"  in  this  series  being,  incidentally,  by 
Mr.  Watson  himself.  The  latest  number  of  The  Congressional 
Eecord  lies  on  top  of  a  stray  volume  of  Hansard,  while  Sinbad 
and  Ali  Baba,  in  a  sumptuous  edition  of  Lane's  "Arabian 
Nights,"  are  sadly  crowded  by  a  recent  importation  from 
Canada. 

This  is  his  kingdom.  Around  him  he  has  gathered  an 
efficient  and  devoted  staff  to  assist  him  in  editing  Watson's 
Jeffersonian  Magazine  and  The  Weekly  Jeffersonian. 

Few  men  write  more  legibly  and  yet  with  more  character  in 
their  chirography  than  Mr.  Watson,  and  practically  all  of  his 
historical  works  went  thus  to  the  printer,  for  they  were  pro- 
duced in  the  days  when  his  fights  for  the  people  had  greatly 
reduced  his  worldly  possession  and  he  had  to  be  his  own 
amanuensis.  But  he  finds  no  difficulty  in  dictating  the  most 
carefully  wrought  of  his  editorials,  when  occasion  requires. 

At  his  elbow  sits  the  long  distance  telephone,  by  means  of 
which  he  keeps  in  close  touch  with  his  two  publications,  directs 
the  affairs  of  his  various  plantations,  and  keeps  in  communica- 
tion with  the  world  at  large. 

Behind  him  hangs  a  handsome  oil  painting  of  "Night,"  by 
one  of  the  masters,  its  colors  as  fresh  as  if  it  were  painted 
yesterday,  and  lending  an  appropriate  atmosphere  to  the 
entire  surroundings.  The  morning  sun  shines  in  at  the  wide 
east  window  and  again  comes  in  at  the  south,  giving  a  cheerful 
aspect  to  this  mental  work-shop  of  his. 

The  birds  are  his  companions  and  they  seem  to  know  by  a 
sort  of  subtle  instinct  that  he  is  their  friend.  The  wood- 
peckers may  be  heard  drumming  under  the  eaves,  piercing 
their  way  to  the  interior  of  the  roof,  where  they  build  and 
breed.  These  are  depredations,  of  course,  but  he  delights  in 
their  friendly  association.  When  he  was  writing  his  "Life  of 
Napoleon"  there  was  what  we  call  in  Georgia  a  red  bird — the 
Kentucky  cardinal  of  more  pretentious  literature — which 
perched  on  his  window  sill  daily,  confident  that  he  would  be 
fed  and  treated  kindly.  He  became  a  pet,  free  and  unconfined. 
He  was  like  a  liveried  herald  from  the  Reign  of  Terror.  Soon 
after  the  author  had  finished  his  work  he  found  a  dead  red- 


INTRODUCTORY. 


Vll 


bird,  shot  by  some  wanton  boy,  and  the  thought  has  haunted 
him  ever  since  that  in  all  probability  it  was  his  confiding 
feathered  companion  who  had  thus  become  the  victim  of  a 
malicious  shaft. 

The  house  in  which  "Xapoleon"  and  practically  all  of  Mr. 
Watson's  other  books,  except  "Bethany"  and  "The  Life  and 
Times  of  Andrew  Jackson"  were  written  is  still  his  property, 
though  he  has  moved  to  larger  quarters,  but  it  is  a  striking 
illustration  of  the  real  nature  of  the  man  that  for  years  he  used 
that  house  as  a  means  of  repaying,  a  hundred  fold,  the  kind- 


Mr.  Watson's  old  nurse,  Amanda  Bugg,  whose  name  is  on  the  com- 
plimentary list  of  the  Magazine  along  with  that  of  Mr. 
Watson's  sisters,  brothers,  etc. 

ness  shown  him  by  an  old  friend  in  the  days  when  he  began 
making  his  way  in  the  world.  He  had  been  compelled  to  leave 
college  without  completing  his  course,  because  he  could  not 
continue  without  drawing  too  heavily  upon  the  resources  of  his 
father.  He  went  to  Screven  county  and  taught  school  in  a  log 
cabin  quite  small  enough  and  dilapidated  enough  to  meet  the 
traditions  of  greatness  in  an  early  environment  that  cramped 
the  soul. 

He  wrote  his  friend,  one  of  his  former  school  teachers,  Mr. 
E.  H.  Pearce,  at  Thomson,  and  asked  if  he  would  board  him 
for  a  year  "on  trust"  while  he  established  himself  in  the  la.w. 
His  friend  consulted  his  good  wife  and  consented.    This  was 


INTRODUCTORY. 


the  beginning  of  his  career  at  the  bar,  during  which  his 
annual  practice  expanded  from  $214  the  first  year  to  as  much 
as  $18,000  per  year  at  the  period  when  he  decided  to  abandon 
his  profession.  His  gratitude  for  the  assistance  rendered  him 
in  that  first  year  consisted  of  something  more  than  a  mere 
payment  of  his  board  bill,  for  the  kind-hearted  couple  who 
extended  the  favor  lived  for  many  years,  as  his  guests,  in  the 
home  which  was  so  long  his  own. 

The  room  in  which  he  did  his  literary  work  has  been  de- 
tached from  the  old  home  and  added  to  the  house  next  door, 
which  is  also  his  property.    Here  his  daughter  and  her  hus- 


MOUNTED  ON  HIS  FAVORITE  HORSE. 


band.  Mr.  O.  S.  Lee,  made  their  home,  with  a  dimpled  toddler 
of  the  third  generation  growing  up  under  the  shade  of  the 
very  trees  planted  by  Grandpa  Watson  and  his  devoted  wife. 

And  in  this  connection  let  it  be  said  that  no  man  ever  had  a 
help-meet  more  peculiarly  fitted  to  "redouble  his  joys  and  cut 
his  griefs  in  half.1'  The  Durhams  of  Oconee  and  Greene 
belong,  like  the  Watsons,  to  the  pioneer  stock  which  cleared 
the  primeval  forests  in  the  days  when  George  the  Third  was 


INTRODUCTORY. 


IX 


king,  and  they  have  been  prominent  in  the  life  of  the  com- 
munity ever  since.  The  gracious  charm  with  which  she  pre- 
sides over  her  hospitable  home,  the  woman  of  culture  combined 
with  the  efficient  housewife,  constitute  the  keynote  of  that 
helpful  comradeship  which  has  comforted  her  husband  through 
the  storm  and  stress  he  has  encountered  and  subdued. 

His  son,  Mr.  J.  Durham  Watson,  with  his  wife,  who  is  a 
native  of  Kingston,  X.  Y.,  make  their  home  near  Mr.  Watson, 
and  here  another  grandchild  suffuses  the  household  with  the 
sunshine  which  can  only  come  with  the  prattle  and  coo  of 
budding  infancy.    Mr.  Durham  Watson  has  represented  his 


The  present  appearance  of  the  little  log  school  house  in  Screven 
County,  where  Mr.  Watson  taught  school  in  18  75,  near 
the  residence  of  William  Cail.    The  place 
is  now  known  as  Goloid. 

native  county  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State,  and 
during  his  father's  connection  with  the  New  York  publication 
bearing  his  name,  was  the  associate  editor. 

Such  is  the  real  Watson  in  his  ideal  home.  Such  is  the  man 
whom  friend  and  foe  unite  in  regarding  as  one  of  the  ablest 
of  his  time.  The  factionalism  from  which  so  much  bitterness 
was  engendered  is  rapidly  passing  away,  and,  without  stop- 
ping to  quibble  about  names  and  party  lines,  the  people  of 
the  South  and  West,  and  many  of  those  in  the  East,  realize 
that  the  principles  for  which  he  stood,  in  the  stirring  clays 
gone  by,  like  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  are  l>eing  embodied 
into  statutes,  State  and  Federal,  for  which  he,  in  a  large 
measure,  made  straight  the  way.  He  has  put  aside  all  political 
ambition  and  only  aspires  to  devote  his  time  and  talents 


X 


INTRODUCTORY. 


through  his  publications,  to  the  common  good.  He  is  deeply 
interested  in  the  present  movement  of  the  Farmers'  Educa- 
tional and  Co-operative  Union,  and  as  a  disinterested  friend 
and  counsellor  will  devote  some  time  to  the  furtherance  of  its 
interests.  The  members  of  this  organization,  composed  of 
actual  tillers  of  the  soil,  recognize  in  him  an  able  and  sincere 
friend  and  welcome  his  co-operation.  So,  on  the  platform,  in 
the  interest  of  this  movement,  and  in  his  study,  for  the  welfare 


MR.  AND  MRS.  THOS.  E.  WATSON. 


of  all  mankind,  he  spends  his  time,  serene  in  the  enjoyment  of 
domestic  happiness  and  the  companionship  of  his  books.  There 
are  a  thousand  evidences  that  he  is  more  powerful  today  in 
his  peaceful  retirement  than  when  in  office,  and  his  strength 
and  influence  are  growing  every  day.  The  shifting  shuttle  has 
wrought  many  changes  in  public  sentiment.  Those  who  pic- 
tured him,  in  other  days,  as  a  reckless  Jack  Cade,  swearing 
that  the  three-hooped  pot  should  have  ten  hoops,  and  seven 
half  penny  loaves  should  sell  for  a  penny,  realize  now  that  in 
a  time  of  revolution  he  would  have  been,  not  the  rude  Kentish- 


INTRODUCTORY. 


xi 


man,  but  a  Danton  or  a  Mirabeau  and  that  even  in  the  economic 
revolution  for  which  he  strove  so  mightily  he  was  the  fearless 
champion  of  prophetic  vision  and  high  intelligence,  contend- 
ing against  the  hosts  of  oppression. 

Ordinarily  it  is  a  doubtful  compliment  to  say  that  a  man  is 
honest.  It  is  one  of  the  things  which  should  go  without  saying. 
But  is  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  a  man  who  has  been  so  bitterly 
assailed,  in  the  heat  of  factional  politics,  for  so  many  sins, 
should  have  been  regarded,  even  by  his  foes,  as  upright  in  his 
integrity  and  sincere  in  his  convictions.  Rancor  itself  has  not 
come  near  him  there  and  his  legion  of  friends  are  multiplying 
as  the  years  go  by. 

The  leisure  which  Matthew  Arnold  called  "the  meat  and 
drink"  necessary  to  high  development,  is  his,  so  far  as  the 
exigencies  of  life  are  concerned,  but  he  keeps  every  moment 
filled  with  the  work  he  has  assigned  himself.  In  this  atmos- 
phere of  philosophic  calm,  removed  from  the  turmoil  of  the 
world,  and  yet  with  his  fingers  ever  on  the  pulse  of  events,  he 
works  and  dreams — works  as  if  he  were  a  struggling  young 
lawyer  and  with  the  world  yet  to  conquer,  and  dreaming  with 
that  fine  effectiveness  which  comes  of  a  logical  mind  winged 
with  the  faculty  of  imagination.  His  is  the  sane  mind  in  the 
sound  body,  his  daily  regime  preserving  the  heritage  of  health. 
No  man  would  judge,  from  his  appearance,  that  he  had  passed 
middle  life  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that,  in  point  of  fact,  that  is 
true.  He  has  encountered  and  overcome  many  obstacles.  Like 
Orlando,  he  has  "wrestled  well,  and  overthrown  more  than 
his  enemies."  Great  as  has  been  his  life  work,  perhaps  his 
achievements  after  all,  are  but  an  earnest  of  what  he  is 
yet  to  do. 


Sketches:  historical,  literary 
anft  itf  isceilmmnts 


Random  Reminiscences  of  Toombs 
and  Stephens 

"Little  Elleck"  was  the  war  I  always  heard  it.  when  I  was 
a  buy:  "Little  Elleck"  and  "Bob  Toombs"'  were  the  Castor  and 
Pollux,  the  matchless  heroes,  in  our  neck  of  the  woods. 

Regarding  Toombs,  the  feeling  was  one  of  boundless  admira- 
tion. His  intellect,  eloquence,  imperial  deportment,  scintillant 
wit,  gladiatorial  grandeur,  were  subjects  of  inexhaustible  com- 
ment. He  was  the  privileged  character  of  ante-bellum  Georgia 
politics.  He  could  say  and  do  things  no  other  public  man.  with- 
out courting  ruin,  could  have  said  and  done.  Inconsistent 
votes  and  speeches  might  injure  others,  but  they  never  bothered 
Toombs.  Shown  up  on  the  stump  by  an  opposing  speaker  who 
produced  the  record  to  prove  that  Toombs  had  gone  astray,  the 
accusing  orator  triumphantly  inquired.  "What  have  you  to  say 
to  that,  sir?"  And  Toombs  would  set  the  crowd  to  laughing 
and  cheering  by  saying.  "I  think  it  was  a  d  d  bad  vote." 

Arraigned  in  public  discussion  for  having  said  some  outrage- 
ous something  or  other,  on  a  previous  occasion.  Toombs  bristled 
up  and  declared  defiantly.  "I  never  said  it  !" 

"Oh.  but  you  did!"  exclaimed  the  other  fellow.  "I've  got 
the  dead-wood  on  you — here  it  is  in  this  paper." — proceeding 
to  draw  it  from  his  pocket — 

"Well,  I  don't  care  a  d — n,  if  I  did  say  it."  cried  Toombs,  and 
the  crowd  laughed,  and  yelled.  "Go  it.  Toombs!" 

Such  an  incident  as  this  last  seems  apochryphal :  but  the  late 
Rev.  E.  A.  Steed  related  it  to  me  when  I  was  at  Mercer  Uni- 
versity, saving  that  he  himself  was  present  when  it  occurred. 
In  describing  the  scene  and  referring  to  Toombs.  Mr.  Steed 
added.  "What  could  you  do  with  a  man  like  that  '." 

Yes.  Toombs  was  big  and  noisy  and  brilliant  and  overbearing 
and  successful  and  magnetic :  people  were  carried  off  their  feet 
by  the  impetuous  rush  of  his  mind  and  his  passions.    He  was 

2-Sketches 


4 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


great,  and  hero-worshippers  trooped  about  him  wherever  he 
went.  He  could  not  stop  on  the  streets  and  begin  to  talk,  with- 
out attracting  a  crowd.  To  advertise  him  for  a  public  address, 
was  to  collect  the  folks  for  miles  and  miles  around. 


TOOMBS,  IN  HIS  PRIME. 


The  last  political  speech  he  ever  made  in  Thomson,  was  soon 
after  his  return  from  Europe,  in  1875.  Mr.  Stephens  was  the 
orator  of  the  day;  and  Toombs'  name  was  not  down  upon  the 
published  program.  Little  Elleck  occupied  the  morning  session 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


5 


with  his  carefully  prepared,  statesmanly  oration.  But  Mr. 
Stephens  could  no  longer  magnetize  an  audience.  His  voice 
did  not  carry  far,  and  did  not  hold  out  any  length  of  time ;  and, 
besides,  the  vital  spark  did  not  glow  within  the  old  hero  as  it 
once  had  done.  Those  who  only  heard  Mr.  Stephens  after  the 
Civil  War,  could  form  no  conception  of  what  his  power  had 
been. 

Perhaps  a  vague  feeling  of  disappointment  pervaded  the 
multitude,  during  the  dinner  hour,  and  made  it  natural  that 
they  should  yearn  for  another  and  a  different  kind  of  speech. 

Suddenly,  some  one  shouted. 

"Toombs!  Toombs!" 

As  though  an  electric  current  had  shot  through  the  crowd, 
the  multitude  sprang  to  its  feet,  and  there  pealed  forth  a  "Rebel 
Yell,"  and  a  roar  for. 

"Toombs!  Toombs!  Toombs!" 

They  would  take  no  denial:  and  the  old  lion  began  to  toss 
his  iron-gray  hair  back  and  forth  with  his  hand. 

"Let  the  band  play  Dixie,  then,  and  I'll  give  you  a  speech." 
They  struck  up  Dixie,  everybody  yelling  like  mad,  of  course, 
and  then  the  great  orator  stood  forth  to  address  the  people. 

"Fellow  Citizens !  About  eight  years  ago.  the  best  govern- 
ment the  world  ever  saw  told  me  to  'git  up  and  git.*  and  I  did 
it."  The  allusion,  of  course,  was  to  his  enforced  exile  at  the 
close  of  the  Civil  War.  L^ncle  Sam  manifested  a  keen  desire 
to  get  his  hands  upon  Robert  Toombs :  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  did  "git  up  and  git"  is  a  thrilling  story  which  cannot  be  told 
here.  The  jocular  reference  to  his  own  flight,  set  the  crowd 
laughing;  and,  for  an  hour  or  so.  Toombs  did  what  the  en- 
feebled Stephens  could  not  then  do — reached  the  audience  with 
his  voice,  entertained  it  with  his  wit.  and  inflamed  it  with  his 
own  unquenchable  fires. 

Such  was  one  of  the  men  of  whom  I  derived,  from  environ- 
ment, impressions  of  his  grandeur,  before  I  was  old  enough  to 
understand  what  it  was  all  about.  The  other  was  totally  dif- 
ferent. The  feeling  which  "the  Stephens  men"  of  that  day  had 
for  "Little  Elleck."  was  never  aroused  by  any  other  Georgia 
statesman.  People  might  or  might  not  admire  Bob  Toombs 
and  Ben  Hill,  but  they  were  never  loved,  even  by  their  most 
ardent  admirers  as  "the  Stephens  men"  loved  Little  Elleck. 
Toward  the  "Pea-ridge  boy"  who  had  been  educated  by  some 
charitable  ladies  and  warm-hearted  men:  and  who  always 
looked  so  boyish,  and  frail  and  sickly:  who  had  made  such  a 
heroic  battle  against  poverty  and  disease :  who  always  defended 
the  unfortunate  and  never  prosecuted;  and  who  was  ever  for 


6 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


the  under  dog;  and  who  had  such  inexhaustible  fountains  of 
human  kindness — for  him,  for  "Little  Elleck,"  there  went  forth 
a  tenderness,  a  touching  trust,  a  fidelity  which  made  for  him 
a  kingdom  of  his  own — a  holy  of  holies,  sacred  to  himself 
alone. 

In  the  opening  chapters  of  "Bethany,"  are  descriptions  of 
visits  by  Stephens  and  Toombs  to  my  grand-father's  home,  and 
of  long  conversations  to  which  I  listened.  The  actual  visits 
were  before  my  day,  and  the  conversations  in  "Bethany"  were 
purely  imaginary.  I  never  saw  Mr.  Stephens  until  after  the 
Civil  War,  when,  in  1872,  he  wished  to  go  back  to  Congress. 
He  and  Herschel  V.  Johnson  had  been  elected  to  the  United 
States  Senate  in  1866,  but  the  Republicans  refused  to  let  them 
take  their  seats.  Then,  in  1872,  he  had  again  become  a  can- 
didate for  the  Senate,  but  had  been  defeated  by  General  John 
B.  Gordon — one  of  the  most  magnificent  and  popular  soldiers 
of  the  War,  and  one  of  the  most  irresistible  campaigners  the 
politics  of  the  South  ever  knew. 

Mr.  Stephens  was  thought  to  have  taken  his  failure  very 
much  to  heart.  General  Toombs  interested  himself  actively  in 
persuading  certain  aspirants  in  Stephens'  old  district  to  stand 
out  of  the  way,  and  let  "the  hero"  have  a  walk-over.  After 
this  had  been  diplomatically  arranged,  the  announcement  was 
made  that  Little  Elleck  was  a  candidate  for  Congress.  The 
progress  of  the  perfunctory  canvass  brought  him  to  Thomson, 
where  I  was  attending  school;  and  at  the  news  that  "Elleck 
Stephens  is  going  to  make  a  speech  in  the  Methodist  Church," 
I  went  to  hear  him.  The  house  was  not  large,  but  there  was 
plenty  of  room.  In  fact,  the  audience  was  small  and  not  en- 
thusiastic. They  listened  respectfully  to  the  slender  orator  who 
was  so  colorless  and  appeared  so  feeble,  and  who  spoke  in  a 
high,  thin  voice,  clinging  to  the  pulpit  rail  most  of  the  time. 
I  think  he  was  on  crutches,  because  of  injuries  received  by  the 
falling  of  a  gate  upon  him,  at  his  home.  He  indulged  in  very 
little  gesticulation.  I  remember  he  repeated  that  portion  of 
his  great  ante-bellum  speech  on  the  Oregon  Question,  where 
he  likened  our  system  of  government  to  Ezekiel's  vision.  This 
passage  brought  applause. 

Again,  when  he  was  speaking  of  his  record  and  how  he  had 
sometimes  had  to  differ  from  his  own  people  and  take  positions 
that  were  unpopular,  he  stressed  the  idea  that,  in  him,  they  had 
a  leader  who  would  always  deal  honestly  and  candidly  with 
them,  rvaising  his  voice,  and  elevating  his  right  hand  a  full 
length  above  his  head,  he  cried  in  vibrant  tones,  "No  matter 
how  wildly  partisan  passions  may  rage,  you  shall  always  know 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


7 


what  Elleck  Stephens  thinks'- — bringing  the  uplifted  hand 
down  upon  the  palm  of  the  other  with  a  loud,  "Halleluja  lick." 

Hearty  applause  greeted  this,  but  the  speech  as  a  whole  made 
no  marked  impression !  Old-line  Whigs,  who  had  never  for- 
given him  for  going  over  to  the  Democrats,  took  offense  at 
some  reference  to  their  defunct  party,  and  one  or  two  walked 
out  of  the  house.  There  were  survivors  of  the  Know  Xothing 
movement  who  never  could  forgive  Mr.  Stephens  for  his  violent 
tirades  against  them :  and  there  were  a  few  citizens  of  our  com- 
munity who  attributed  their  loss  of  lawsuits  to  Little  Elleck's 
strategy  in  the  court-house.  These  and  some  other  causes, 
combined  to  make  our  town  and  county  somewhat  cold  toward 
him ;  and  I  well  remember  how  such  out-and-out  Stephens  men 
as  Captain  William  Johnston  and  John  F.  Sutton  exerted 
themselves  to  poll  a  creditable  vote  for  the  hero,  at  our  town 
precinct. 

Captain  Johnston  himself  "sat  on  the  election,"  at  the  court- 
house. He  took  his  place  at  the  window  which  commanded 
Main  street,  and  as  electors  would  pass,  up  or  down,  the  Cap- 
tain would  sing  out — "Come  over  and  give  Little  Elleck  a 
vote."  In  many  cases,  "they  began  to  make  excuse,"  and  went 
their  way.  When  the  polls  closed  Mr.  Stephens  was  elected, 
for  he  had  no  opposition;  but  the  total  of  the  ballots  was  not 
gratifying  to  his  old  friends.  In  after  years,  when  the  politi- 
cians tried  to  put  the  hero  out  of  Congress,  the  common  people 
rallied  to  him  with  some  faint  echo  of  the  fervor  of  other  days. 

"The  Augusta  thimble-riggers,"  as  he  dubbed  them,  opposed 
him.  but  had  to  submit  to  one  check  after  another,  until 
Stephens,  who  had  been  training  with  Dr.  W.  H.  Felton  and 
the  Independents,  was  captured  by  the  regular  Democratic 
nomination  and  made  Governor  of  Georgia,  in  which  office 
lie  died. 

Captain  Johnston,  to  whom  allusion  was  made,  was  a  life- 
long "Stephens  man,'*  of  the  most  unselfish  and  devoted  kind. 
He  never  tired  of  telling  sympathetic  listeners  of  the  doing 
and  sayings  of  his  hero, — accompanying  the  story  usually  with 
an  attempt  at  mimicking  Stephens'  voice  and  manner.  He  told 
me  of  a  case  in  the  Superior  Court  of  Lincoln  County.  Toombs 
was  on  one  side  and  Stephens  on  the  other.  The  presiding 
Judge  was  ruling  against  Little  Elleck  on  the  various  points 
made,  as  the  witnesses  gave  in  their  testimony;  and  Toombs 
was  carrying  everything  with  a  high  hand,  dominating  the 
Court  and  hectoring  Stephens.  It  was  apparent  as  the  trial 
progressed  that  the  latter  was  becoming  intensely  excited.  His 
great  black  eyes  began  to  flash  and  the  wan  cheeks  to  glow. 
When  it  came  his  turn  to  speak,  he  rose,  turned  his  back  upon 


8  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


the  Judge  and,  without  the  customary  "May  it  please  your 
Honor,"  he  began,  in  a  shrill  voice,  shaken  by  passion,  to  ad- 
dress the  jury: 

"Overruled  by  the  Court,  browbeaten  by  opposing  counsel, 
to  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury!  I  appeal!" 


ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS. 


The  Captain  described  how,  after  this  startling  outburst, 
the  orator  mounted  higher  and  higher,  in  a  speech  which 
thrilled  every  hearer,  and  so  won  upon  the  sympathies  of  the 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  9 


men  in  the  box,  that  Toombs'  argument  and  the  Judge's  charge 
were  unavailing:  Little  Elleck  got  the  verdict. 

In  the  profession,  it  was  commonly  said,  "Stephens  is  a 
case-lawyer."  In  general  knowledge  of  the  law,  as  a  science 
and  system,  he  was  ranked  far  below  Toombs  and  Cone  and 
his  own  brother,  Linton  Stephens.  But  it  was  admitted  that 
"Little  Elleck''  was  marvelously  strong  in  litigation  where  he 
had  prepared  the  case  for  trial,  and  where  the  conduct  of  the 
court-house  battle  was  left  to  him.  Both  in  civil  and  criminal 
cases,  he  was  a  famous  winner  of  verdicts.  Of  this  fact,  he 
was  deservedly  proud;  and  in  his  old  age  he  spoke  to  me  and 
to  others  of  writing  a  history  of  his  celebrated  cases;  but  he 
never  did. 

During  his  last  years  in  Congress,  the  "Potter  Resolutions," 
as  they  were  called,  came  up  in  the  House.  These  proposed  a 
re-opening  of  the  Hayes-Tilden  electoral  contest.  Mr.  Stephens 
took  strong  ground  against  them,  and  predicted  that  their 
passage  would  lead  to  blood-shed.  It  was  nearing  the  close  of 
the  session,  when  so  much  gets  crowded  on  the  calendar,  and 
men  become  so  brutally  selfish  to  get  action  on  their  own  pet 
measures.  Mr.  Stephens  "went  on  refining,"  or  attempted  to 
do  so,  but  the  impatient  members  began  a  clamor,  to  drown  the 
feeble  voice.  Mr.  Stephens  ran  his  roller-chair  into  the  open 
space  before  the  Clerk's  desk  and  endeavored  to  go  on  with 
his  speech.  But  the  House — Republican,  of  course — howled 
him  down.  This  was  easy  enough  to  do,  since  he  had  little 
strength  of  body  or  of  voice. 

This  insult  to  his  gray  hairs,  this  want  of  respect  to  the 
ex-Vice-President  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  enraged  him 
extremely.  The  incident  helped  to  rekindle  his  popularity. 
He  drew  good  crowds  to  the  hustings  in  the  speech-making 
tours  which  followed  the  adjournment  of  Congress.  One  of  his 
appointments  was  at  Thomson.  It  was  a  fine  summer  day  and 
there  were  several  thousand  people  on  the  ground.  A  delega- 
tion came  up  from  Augusta — Major  Joe  Ganahl,  President 
John  P.  King,  of  the  Georgia  Railroad,  and  others. 

Mr.  Stephens  required  stimulants,  these  latter  days.  It  got 
to  be  a  joke — his  way  of  concluding  a  passage  of  his  speech 
with  the  words — 

"This  is  genuine  Jeffersonian  Democracy" — and  then  putting 
to  his  lips  the  little  bottle  which  contained  his  liquor. 

After  the  big  men  all  took  their  places  on  the  speakers' 
stand,  that  day — I  remember  how  they  had  to  lift  old  Mr. 
John  P.  King — it  seemed  that  Stephens  needed  a  little  toddy 
before  he'd  be  ready  to  begin.  So  Major  Joe  Ganahl  was  put 
up  to  kill  time,  and  entertain  the  crowd.  He  did  the  former, 
to  the  Queen's  taste.   As  to  entertaining  or  enthusing  a  country 


10 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


crowd,  he  had  no  more  turn  for  it  than  I  have  for  pleasing  ai 
plutocrat.  The  Major  made  point  after  point  that  he  expected 
to  start  the  applause,  but  none  started.  You  have  seen  how 
speakers  look,  wax  hot  and  perspire,  and  gesticulate  violently, 
when  they  pump  for  the  cheering,  and  don't  get  it  ?  Well,  that 
was  exactly  the  way  Major  Ganahl  looked  that  day. 

Presently,  some  one  on  the  seat  behind,  reached  out,  and 
pulled  the  Major's  coat-tail.  Mr.  Stephens  had  swallowed  a 
final  sip  out  of  the  little  bottle,  and  now  felt  able  to  make  his 
address. 

There  was,  at  first,  a  deep  silence  and  eager  expectation. 
Everybody  present  had  so  often  heard  of  the  statesman's  ora- 
tory. Every  one  there  was,  more  or  less,  his  friend.  They 
meant  to  vote  for  him,  and  to  keep  on  doing  it,  as  long  as  he 
lived.  He  had  declared  that  he  wished  "to  die  in  the  harness," 
and  the  old  man's  wish  had  been  tacitly  accepted  as  the  un- 
written law  of  the  district. 

Nearest  the  small  platform  on  which  Mr.  Stephens  spoke — - 
he  was  seated  in  his  roller-chair — were  grouped  the  elderly 
men  who  had  been  his  supporters  when  he  was  at  his  best. 
These  old  constitutents  paid  close  attention  throughout  the 
address.  But  after  he  had  been  talking  a  short  while,  this 
small  portion  of  the  audience  were  his  only  listeners.  His 
voice  could  not  reach  those  farther  away,  and  the  spectacle  was 
that  which  is  so  often  witnessed  at  public,  out-door  meetings. 
In  front  and  near  the  speaker,  is  a  well-defined  minority, 
seated  on  the  benches:  back  of  them  and  all  around  them  is 
the  circle,  sometimes  ten  or  twenty  deep,  in  which  the  young 
men  chat  with  the  girls,  or  married  people  talk  among  them- 
selves. It  is  as  though  a  girdle  of  babbling  noise  and  con- 
fusion were  thrown  around  a  small  body  of  silence  and 
quietude. 

Only  once,  as  I  remember,  was  there  any  applause.  Mr- 
Stephens  related  the  "Potter  Resolutions"  incident  to  which 
reference  had  been  made,  and  doing  his  best  to  make  his  voice 
sound  big  and  strong,  cried  out,  with  the  favorite  gesture 
which  has  been  already  described: 

"I  told  them  they  might  howl  me  down  in  Congress  but  that 
they'd  never  howl  me  down  before  the  American  people." 

After  the  speech  was  ended,  there  were  the  usual  comments. 
Those  of  Major  Ganahl,  I  heard.  He  exclaimed  to  some  of  us, 
"Well,  sir,  I  never  saw  such  people  as  these.  Thtey  didn't 
applaud  me,  and  they  don't  even  applaud  Mr.  Stephens."  The 
fact  appeared  to  be  consoling  to  the  Major,  and  he  made  quite 
a  point  of  calling  everybody's  attention  to  it. 

The  most  gratified  man  that  I  saw  on  the  grounds  was  old 
man  Anderson  Faucett.    This  gentleman  had  striking  pecu- 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


11 


liarities  of  appearance  and  deportment  ;  and  one  who  had  once 
known  him  could  hardly  have  forgotten  him.  Mr.  Stephens 
had  cultivated  a  good  memory  for  faces,  and  he  recognized  his 
old  friend  at  once.  Mr.  Faucett  was  deeply  pleased.  He  came 
by  the  group  where  I  was  standing,  and  stopping,  exclaimed. 
"He  knew  me.  sir.  he  knew  me  !  He  called  me  by  name,  and  I 
haven't  seen  him  in" — I  forget  how  many  years,  but  it  was 
before  the  War. 

In  the  summer  time,  when  Mr.  Stephens  was  at  his  home — 
Liberty  Hall — I  would  board  his  special  car.  and  go  as  far  as 
Augusta  with  him.  as  he  was  returning  to  Washington.  (His 
health  was  so  delicate  that  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  have  a 
private  coach,  whose  temperature  could  be  kept  uniform.) 

On  one  of  these  trips  he  told  me  the  old  story  of  the  man 
who  placed  too  much  confidence  in  the  prowess  of  his  dog:  and 
who  in  the  utmost  good  faith  pitted  this  canine  against  a 
peddler's  monkey.  The  fight  wasn't  much  of  a  combat  for  the 
monkey  (as  I  recall  it)  jumped  on  the  dog's  back,  took  its 
tail  between  his  teeth,  and  closed  clown.  The  dog  was  wholly 
unprepared,  either  in  mind  or  body,  for  that  kind  of  thing:: 
and  he  lit  out  for  the  horizon — yelping  in  horror  and  fright. 
The  man  who  owned  the  monkey  called  it  in.  and  went  "his 
way ;  but  the  dog  was  out  of  his  senses,  temporarily,  and  dis- 
appeared.   The  owner  of  the  dog  began  to  call  him. 

"Here.  Towser.  here!  Here.  Towser.  here!" — but  no  report 
from  Towser. 

"Here.  Towser.  here  !    Come  on  back — that  d  n  varmint's 

gone." 

It  was  most  enjoyable  to  be  at  Liberty  Hall.  When  I  was 
there.  Mr.  Stephens  was  dictating  to  John  M.  Graham  (  now 
of  Atlanta,  and  a  mighty  fine  fellow)  a  "History  of  the 
United  States."  This  work  occupied  him  in  the  forenoon:  but 
he  would  join  us  on  that  wide.  cool,  delightful  back-piazza, 
after  dinner.  James  D.  Waddell.  a  bosom  friend  of  long 
standing,  was  stopping  with  Mr.  Stephens,  at  this  time,  and 
most  excellent  company  he  was.  No  man  was  better  at  telling 
anecdotes.  His  acting  alone,  was  enough  to  tickle  the  ribs. 
For  hours,  he  would  have  us  roaring  with  laughter.  Mr. 
Stephens  enjoyed  it  as  much  as  any  of  us:  and  even  when 
Waddell  related  the  unprintable  story  of  how  a  mischievous 
boy  had  secretly  changed  the  lettering  of  one  of  the  New 
England  Blue  Laws,  and  thereby  brought  dismay  and  con- 
fusion into  the  Court,  when  the  next  Common  Scold  stood  up 
to  receive  sentence.  Mr.  Stephens  had  to  struggle  hard  with 
The  impulse  to  laugh,  while  his  sense  of  propriety  forced  him 


12  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


to  say  rebukingly  to  his  friend,  "You'd  better  shut  your  dirty 
mouth!" 

There  was  a  tall,  well-made,  elderly  Irishman  present — a 
native  of  Augusta  and  a  great  friend  of  Mr.  Stephens.  He 
came  up  to  my  idea  of  Captain  Costello  of  Thackeray's  novel, 
only  he  was  as  sober  as  a  judge,  and  a  most  tremendously 
dignified  person.  He  had,  of  course,  witnessed  and  heard 
Waddell's  acting  and  telling  the  anecdote.  He  had  fairly 
shouted  with  laughter.  He  had  to  Avipe  away  the  tears.  As 
we  had  renewed  our  peals,  which  we  did  several  times,  he  had 
renewed  his.  I  never  saw  a  man  enjoy  a  thing  more.  As  the 
last  of  the  sounds  of  merriment  died  away,  and  we  sat  silent 
from  exhaustion,  the  stately  Irishman  approached  Waddell 
and  dropping  his  voice  to  a  confidential  tone,  inquired — "What 
letter  did  you  say  that  boy  changed?"  And  then  we  did 
explode,  and  Mr.  Stephens  let  out  all  that  he  had  been  holding 
back.  The  very  idea  of  that  dignified  gentleman  laughing  as 
he  had  done,  without  knowing  what  was  the  joke,  was  just  too 
funny  J 

I  remember  that  Mr.  Stephens  , took  me  into  his  library, 
where  his  studying  had  been  done  when  he  was  practicing  law. 
Some  of  the  volumes  were  canted  on  the  shelves,  and  he  asked 
me  to  straighten  them  up.  There  were  not  very  many  books ; 
and  I  get  the  idea,  from  his  own  works  and  the  letters  to  his 
brother  Linton,  that  he  had  only  a  slight  acquaintance  with 
history  and  literature.  Some  of  his  literary  opinions,  expressed 
in  his  correspondence,  are  quite  crude,  to  use  the  gentlest  pos- 
sible word. 

He  was  fond  of  children,  but  he  knew  when  he  had  enough. 
I  recall  he  was  quite  positive  that  a  noisy,  romping  crowd 
of  them  should  not  spend  the  night  at  Liberty  Hall.  They 
lived  in  the  neighborhood,  and  were  inclined  to  remain  over — ■ 
the  evening  was  inclement,  I  think — but  the  old  man  ordered 
the  carriage,  and  called  out  somewhat  sharply,  "No,  you  must 
go  home." 

I  was  sitting  outside  on  the  back  piazza  one  day,  while  Mr. 
Stephens  was  in  the  room,  next  to  me,  talking  with  a  school 
boy.  The  lad  happened  to  mention  that  the  statesman's  School 
History  of  the  United  States  was  taught  in  the  academy  which 
he  attended.   In  a  quick  tone  of  pleasure,  Mr.  Stephens  asked : 

"You  say  they  teach  my  history  in  your  school?" 

I  chanced  to  look  through  the  window  at  Mr.  Stephens,  and 
he  chanced  to  look  at  me;  our  eyes  met  for  an  instant,  and  I 
saw  that  he  was  confused.  The  vanity  was  so  natural  and  so 
innocent !   Yet  he  shied  like  a  girl. 

When  I  went  up  to  Crawfordville  to  represent,  in  a  pre- 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


13 


liminary  trial,  the  young  white  men  accused  of  an  atrocious 
murder,  I  took  supper  at  Liberty  Hall,  after  the  hearing  was 
over.  It  was  late,  and  the  others  had  all  left  the  table.  Dora, 
the  mulatto  woman,  fixed  something  for  me;  and  while  I  was 
causing  it  to  disappear,  in  staggered  a  man,  whom  I  will  call 
Barleycorn,  for  he  was  one  of  the 'most  habitual  drunkards 
that  we  ever  had  in  our  midst. 

Addressing  me  truculently  and  loudly,  he  said,  in  substance : 

"You  are  up  here  trying  to  defeat  the  ends  of  justice.  Those 
men  are  guilty,  and  you  know  it,  sir!" 

There  was  lots  more  of  the  same  kind.  I  told  him  that  I 
did  not  know  anything  of  the  sort,  and  continued  my  supper — ■ 
afterwards  joining  the  whist-players  in  Mr.  Stephens'  room. 
Dora  must  have  carried  to  Mr.  Stephens,  while  I  was  eating,  a 
report  on  Barleycorn,  for  when  he  came  lurching  through  the 
door  of  Mr.  Stephens'  room,  he  was  stopped  in  short  order,  by 
a  peremptory — 

"Mr.  Barleycorn!    I  want  you  to  leave  my  house!" 

The  poor  fellow  looked  at  Mr.  Stephens,  stupidly  and 
pleadingly — 

"You  won't  go  back  on  me,  will  you,  Mr.  Stephens?" 

"Mr.  Barleycorn,  I  never  go  back  on  anybody.  But  you  are 
drunk  and  you  have  insulted  one  of  my  guests,  and  I  want  you 
to  leave  my  house." 

Mr.  Stephens  loved  his  grove,-  the  magnificent  oaks  that 
shaded  his  grounds.  He  was  furious  when  the  Crawfordville 
folks,  in  his  absence,  cut  down  one  of  the  giants  which  stood 
on  the  lot  which  he  had  given  for  church  purposes. 

"The  Vandals!"  he  cried,  passionately.  "The  Vandals! 
Dick  Johnston  and  I  used  to  read  under  that  oak,  when  we 
were  young!"  (This  was  Richard  Malcolm  Johnston,  author 
of  "Dukesboro  Tales"  and  other  nearly  successful  works.) 

Judge  Solomon  Marcus,  of  Augusta — a  worshipper  of  Mr. 
Stephens — wanted  the  passengers  in  the  cars  on  the  Georgia 
Railroad  to  have  a  better  view  of  Liberty  Hall.  So  the  Judge 
took  the  liberty  of  ordering  some  of  the  trees  cut  out — Mr. 
Stephens  being  in  Washington  at  the  time.  Mr.  Stephens  did 
not  like  it,  at  all,  and  said  so;  but  he  had  no  words  with  his 
old  friend  Marcus  about  it. 

One  day  at  Liberty  Hall,  when  he  and  I  were  alone,  he  told 
me  that  he  regretted  the  displays  of  bad  temper  which  he  had 
made  in  his  earlier  years.   He  admitted  that  he  had  sometimes 


14  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


been  too  irascible  and  rough.  "But,"  said  he,  "I  was  poor  and 
sensitive,  and  I  thought  they  looked  down  on  me,  and  were 
trying  to  prevent  me  from  succeeding,  etc." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Stephens  did  let  his  temper  run 
away  with  him,  on  many  occasions;  and  he  was  often  inex- 
cusably harsh  and  impolite. 

A  friend  once  told  me  of  an  instance: 

General  Glascock  and  young  Stephens  were  holding  a  joint 
discussion  on  the  hustings.  Mr.  Stephens  had  read  something 
from  a  book.  "What  page  is  that?"  asked  General  Glascock. 
Stephens  closed  the  volume,  slammed  it  down,  and  cried  snap- 
pishly— -"Find,  it  for  yourself."  That  was  not  only  a  flagrant 
breach  of  decorum,  but  a  positive  violation  of  the  unwritten 
law  of  debate.  It  is  my  duty  to  tell  my  adversary  from  what 
page  I  read,  even  though  he  does  not  ask  it. 

In  challenging  Herschel  V.  Johnson  to  fight  a  duel.  Mr. 
Stephens  allowed  a  very  evil  spirit  to  master  him.  In  his 
quarrel  with  Judge  Cone,  he  was  altogether  to  blame  and  put 
upon  that  able  lawyer,  in  public,  an  intolerable  humiliation. 
Of  course,  it  was  most  cowardly  for  Cone  to  afterwards 
assault  him  with  a  knife,  when  he  was  unprepared  to  defend 
himself. 

In  his  quarrel  with  Ben  Hill,  and  in  the  challenge  which 
followed,  he  was  altogether  wrong.  And,  of  course,  he  got 
worsted  in  the  controversy.  Mr.  Stephens  was  no  match  for 
Hill,  either  on  the  stump  or  in  written  controversy.  It  took 
Toombs  to  meet  Hill;  and,  even  then,  it  was  nip  and  tuck.  In 
the  great  debate  at  Washington  (Wilkes  County),  Ben  Hill, 
who  had  met  Stephens  the  day  before  and  had  "worn  him  out" 
— as  Stephens'  own  friends  admitted — could  do  more  than 
hold  his  own  with  Toombs.  General  Ranse  Wright — a  par- 
tisan of  Hill  and  the  bitter  enemy  of  Stephens  and  Toombs — 
went  from  his  home  in  Augusta  to  hear  the  debate.  He  told 
the  late  Marion  McDaniel,  at  Barnett,  where  he  was  taking  the 
train  home  to  Augusta  from  Washington : 

"Hill  made  nothing  out  of  Toombs." 

In  the  encounter  between  Hill  and  Toombs,  before  the 
Georgia  Railroad  Convention,  the  younger  man,  in  his  very 
prime,  came  off  victorious.  But  in  the  Jack  Jones  bond  case, 
much  later,  Toombs  won.  Hill  had  the  bad  taste  to  enter  the 
fight  with  a  flourish  of  trumpets,  sounded  from  Washington 
City.  "The  honor  of  Jack  Jones  is  the  honor  of  Georgia!" 
And  so  forth.  Old  Toombs  said  nothing,  but  made  ready  for 
the  battle. 

"Mother,  who  caused  this  war?"  I  asked  that  one  day.  in 
the  quiet  and  lonesomeness  of  1864,  when  my  father,  uncles, 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


15 


etc..  had  all  gone  to  the  war.  and  when  the  terrors  of  the  period 
were  felt,  even  by  a  bcsy  of  eight  years. 

"Mother,  who  brought  all  this  about?"  "Toombs,''  she  an- 
swered. But  whether  she  explained  matters,  and  described  the 
great  Insurgent.  I  cant  recollect. 

I  remember,  in  1870,  going  to  the  court-house  and  hanging 
around  as  long  as  school  hours  would  permit  of  it.  in  the  hope 
of  hearing  the  big  lawyers  "plead.''  As  though  it  were  yester- 
day I  can  see  old  Toombs,  Ranse  Wright  and  Judge  Gibson. 

General  Ranse  Wright's  face — and  he  was  a  splendid  figure 
of  a  man ! — had  on  it  a  most  extraordinary  expression  of 
pleased  assurance  of  success.  On  the  contrary,  Toombs  looked 
serious  and  somewhat  worried.  He  was  putting  questions  to 
one  of  his  witnesses  (Buck  Binion),  and  the  answers  perhaps 
didn't  suit. 

The  school  bell  rang,  and  I  had  to  leave  without  having 
heard  anything  more  than  a  portion  of  Judge  Gibson's  charge 
to  the  Grand  Jury.  I  remember  that  he  gave  the  Ku-Klux 
a  severe  excoriation,  and  as  he  was  talking  to  them,  and  knew 
it.  there  could  be  no  question  of  his  courage. 

"Little  Ed*'  Gross,  with  whom  I  boarded  while  teaching 
school  in  Screven  County  in  1875.  was  a  Ben  Hill  man.  and 
he  bore  a  grudge  against  Toombs.  In  truth,  Mr.  Gross  had 
a  dangerous  temper  and  a  long  memory. 

It  seems  that  Toombs  was  walking  about  the  camp  one  clay 
during  the  War,  when  the  General,  feeling  his  liquor,  was  in 
his  most  royal  mood. 

'"Get  out  of  my  way!"  he  would  say,  gruffly,  to  each  human 
obstruction  that  happened  to  be  on  his  line  of  advance. 

The  little  black  eyes  of  Mr.  Gross  snapped,  as  he  told  me  of 
Toombs'  insolence,  and  he  concluded,  with  emphasis.  "I  Avanted 
to  stick  my  bayonet  in  him!'' 

After  my  return  to  Thomson  (1876).  and  at  the  village 
hotel.  Paul  Hudson  introduced  me  to  General  Toombs.  His 
manner  was  most  affable.  Something  being  said  about  the  low 
state  of  law  practice,  he  remarked  to  me.  laughingly — "Well ! 
Mr.  Watson,  you  will  get  the  benefit  of  the  rise." 

Toombs  was  no  believer  in  paper  money — was  down  on  the 
Greenback  currency.  Colonel  Bill  Tutt — one  of  the  wittiest, 
and  brainiest  men  I  ever  knew — took  the  other  side,  of  the 
question,  and  said: 

"General,  the  only  thing  that  I  don't  like  about  this  Green- 
back money  is.  that  I  can  t  get  enough  of  it." 

"Yes!  you'd  drink  sea-water  till  your  d — d  belly  burst,  and 
you'd  never  know  that  you  were  killing  yourself." 

Colonel  Tutt  doubled  up  and  joined  in  the  laugh,  rather 


16  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


sheepishly,  but  he  didn't  "scratch  back"— and  Tutt  was  as  bold 
a  man  as  you'd  care  to  meet. 

The  old  General  began  to  hold  forth,  vigorously  denouncing 
some  public  measure,  whose  name  escapes  my  memory.  Phil 
Carroll  was  trying  to  defend  it,  and  stated,  as  a  clincher — 
"Why,  Mr.  Stephens  says  it's  all  right!" 

"I  don't  care  a  d — n  what  Mr.  Stephens  says" — was  Toombs' 
retort. 

Charlie  DuBose,  who  knew  that  the  General  believed  that 
jurors  in  criminal  cases  should  be  judges  of  the  law,  in  the 
same  sense  that  they  are  judges  of  the  fact,  asked  him  why  it 
was  that  the  Constitutional  Convention,  1877,  did  not  change 
the  wording  of  the  act  on  that  subject. 

The  law  reads  now  as  it  did  before  the  convention  met ;  and 
the  Supreme  Court  has  construed  it  to  mean  that  the  jury  is 
the  judge  of  the  law,  but  that  they  must  take  it  from  the 
court — which  is  sheer  nonsense. 

It  is  not  a  trial  by  one's  "peers"  when  a  city  lawyer,  grown 
to  be  a  judge,  tries  an  illiterate  country  farmer  for  his  life. 

Our  law  conclusively  presumes  that  every  citizen  knows  the 
law,  excepting  when  he  becomes  a  juryman.  The  moment  he 
enters  the  jury-box,  he  is  conclusively  presumed  to  know  noth- 
ing about  it. 

When  I  reflect  upon  some  of  the  fool  decisions  that  our 
Courts  hand  down,  I  find  myself  inclined  to  strike  out  Mr. 
Bumble's  "if,"  and  to  exclaim,  "The  law  is  a  ass." 

To  Charlie  DuBose's  question,  General  Toombs  made  a  reply 
which  seemed  perfectly  satisfactory;  but  I  cannot  recall  it. 
It  must  not  have  been  as  good  as  it  seemed,  for  our  Supreme 
Court  still  serenely  holds  the  idiotic  position  that  the  law, 
which  makes,  in  so  many  words  the  jury,  the  judges  of  both  the 
law  and  the  facts,  is  complied  with,  when  the  jury  is  compelled 
to  let  the  Judge  be  the  judge  of  the  law ! 

General  Toombs  probably  told  Charlie  DuBose  that  the 
Supreme  Court  would  seek  the  intent  of  the  Constitution 
makers,  in  the  speeches  made  on  that  subject,  by  himself  and 
others.  He  could  not  foresee  that  Governor  Colquitt  would  be 
incautious  enough  to  pay,  in  full,  for  the  stenographic  report, 
before  it  was  all  written  out;  and  that  the  Supreme  Court 
would  never  have  those  speeches  to  aid  in  construing  the  law. 

The  judges  should  advise  the  jury  as  to  law,  but  the  juries 
should  be  the  judges  of  it,  as  the  Constitution  directs. 

I  remember  that,  standing  in  the  front  porch  of  the  hotel, 
General  Toombs  was  speaking  of  the  frugality  of  the  French. 

"Why,"  said  he,  "a  Frenchman  would  get  rich  on  what  the 
average  American  wastes.  Five  of  them  would  get  rich  on 
what  I  waste." 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  17 


Some  time  afterwards,  I  recalled  this  remark  to  the  mind 
of  Paul  Hudson,  a  leading  lawyer  at  our  bar,  and  who  had 
been  one  of  Toombs'  colleagues  in  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  1877,  and  who  knew  his  habits  well. 

"Oh,  that  was  just  some  of  Toombs'  big  talk,"  said  Mr. 
Hudson:  "the  old  General  doesn't  waste  much." 

And  that  was  true. 

While  attending  McDuffie  Court,  in  the  Seventies,  the 
General  stopped  at  the  Greenwa^  Hotel.  The  late  Jordan 
E.  White  used  to  tell  me  of  some  of  Toomb'  peculiarities.  The 
General  would  have  Schneider,  of  Augusta,  to  send  up  a  quart 
bottle  of  whiskey,  every  day;  and  at  night,  when  the  General 
was  in  conversation  with  a  dozen  men  who  had  come  to  his 
room,  to  hear  him  talk,  the  bottle  sat  on  a  table  at  his  elbow. 
From  time  to  time,  he  would  fill  his  glass,  and  drain  it.  He 
offered  nobody  else  any.  Expressing  my  surprise,  Mr.  White 
described  how  the  General  would  sit  there  in  his  lordly  way, 
taking  his  liquor,  and  how  the  others  would  gaze  longingly 
toward  the  bottle. 

"Wesley  Worrill  was  nearly  dying  for  a  drink!"  said  Mr. 
White,  and  would  go  off  into  a  peal  of  laughter. 

"The  old  General  would  say,  with  a  nod  at  the  table,  'This  is 
Toombs'  whiskey,  gentlemen.'  " 

It  seems  incredible  that  any  man  could  "carry  off"  a  thing 
like  that,  but  the  General  did.  He  would  empty  the  bottle 
before  he  went  to  bed.  I  asked  Mr.  White  what  his  condition 
would  be,  the  next  morning. 

"Perfectly  sober  and  bright!"  he  answered. 

While  at  Crawfordville,  to  collect  a  preferred  debt  against 
the  Hillman  estate  (which  Toombs  represented),  I  was  thrown 
with  him,  at  the  old  Williams  Hotel. 

The  manner  of  man  he  was,  peeps  out  of  this  fact :  when  he 
was  in  full  practice  at  the  bar,  and  was  a  regular  attendant  of 
the  Inferior  Court  of  Taliaferro  County  (which  met  monthly), 
a  room  at  the  Williams  House  was  reserved  for  Toombs. by  the 
year.  He  spoke  of  this  to  me,  saying  with  a  flourish  of 
his  arm — 

"Oh,  I  told  Williams  that  if  a  gentleman  came  along,  and 
there  was  no  other  room  vacant,  he  might  be  put  in  mine ;  but 
I  didn't  want  any  and  everybody  to  sleep  in  my, bed." 

I  asked  him  if  it  was  true,  as  stated  in  the  Stephens  biograph- 
ies, that  he,  Stephens,  never  lost  a  case  which  he  personally 
conducted. 

"No !  It  is  not  so.  Why,  I  gained  many  cases  against  him, 
myself." 

At  the  hotel  that  night,  were  Judge  William  M.  Keese, 


18 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Milton  Keese,  Hal  Lewis  and,  I  think,  Judge  Columbus  Heard 
and  John  Hart.  Anyhow,  it  was  quite  a  group  which  sat 
around  the  fire-place  in  Judge  Reese's  room,  listening  to 
Toombs  talk.   Hal  Lewis  and  I  lay  across  the  foot  of  the  bed. 


TOOMBS,  IN  OLD  AGE. 

The  old  General  went  on  from  one  topic  to  another,  all  of  us 
paying  the  closest  attention.  It  was  a  brilliant  monologue, 
interrupted  only  by  an  occasional  question.  Judge  Reese  was 
in  awe  of  Toombs;  and  of  course  we  younger  lawyers  had 
sense  enough  to  keep  our  mouths  shut. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


19 


At  least,  all  but  one  of  us  did.  Toombs  was  saving  something 
about  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  he  made 
a  statement  which  I  knew  was  wrong,  for  I  had  chanced  to 
have  been  reading  up  on  the  subject  just  a  few  days  before. 
On  the  impulse  of  the  moment.  I  -hot  in  a  correction! 

Whew !  Always  impatient  of  contradiction,  the  General 
could  scarcely  believe  his  ears,  when  a  nameless  little  tyro  of  a 
lawyer  ventured  to  set  him  right.  He  flashed  at  me  a  swift 
glance  of  wrathful  contempt,  and  roared  out  a  "D — n  it  to 
h — 11 !    D'you  suppose  I  don't  know  what  I'm  talking  about '." 

Judge  Eeese  turned  his  large,  rebuking  eye-  on  me.  and  re- 
marked in  a  voice  of  shocked  surprise — 

"Why.  Watson,  Toombs  was  there.'"  I  was  glad  to  get  off 
so  light — though  I  whispered  to  Hal  Lewis  that  the  General 
was  altogether  "015'."  in  his  memory  of  that  particular  fact. 

It  was  Judge  Eeese  who  elected  himself  the  guardian  of  the 
old  General'-  professional  honor,  after  Toombs  had  reversed 
his  opinion  of  the  Georgia  Railroad's  indorsement  of  the  Joe 
Brown  lease  of  the  State  Road.  President  Charlie  Phinizy. 
of  the  Georgia,  transported  himself  up  to  Washington 
(Georgia),  in  his  private  car:  and  in  consideration  of  si. 500. 
General  Toombs  changed  his  mind  about  that  lease,  which  he 
had  so  often  damned. 

His  ardent  admirers  were  almost  stupified.  Judge  Reese 
made  himself  the  voice  and  the  herald  of  their  righteous  in- 
dignation. Betaking  himself  to  Toombs'  law-office — which  was 
in  the  basement  of  his  mansion — Judge  Reese  broached  the 
subject  of  his  errand,  and  told  Toombs  that  his  friends  were 
deeply  concerned  about  his  glaring  inconsistency.  Old  Toombs 
roared — 

"Reese,  you  tell  my  friends  to  go  to  hell." 
This  happened  many  years  ago.  and  it  may  be  that  some  of 
them  have  gone  there. 

Toombs  wrote  a  letter  (published  in  the  papers)  accusing 
Joseph  E.  Brown  of  swindling  "the  Mitchell  heirs"  out  of 
the  depot  property  in  Atlanta.  The  ex-Governor  had  "ac- 
cepted the  situation."  after  the  War:  had  attended  a  Republi- 
can Convention:  and  had  accepted,  from  Gov.  Bullock  (Re- 
publican), a  position  on  the  Supreme  Court  bench.  Ben  Hill 
swore  he  would  never  take  another  case  while  Joe  Brown  was 
Chief  Justice,  and  he  retired  in  disgust  to  his  South  Georgia 
plantation — in  which,  by  the  way.  he  lost  that  big  Metcalfe 
cotton-case  fee.  and  nearly  erverything  else  that  he  had.  As 
for  Toombs,  he  made  it  the  business  of  his  life  to  go  around 
abusing  Joe  Brown.  He  exhausted  his  own  vocabulary  of 
villification.  and  applied  to  Brown  all  the  vituperation  which 
Curran  had  heaped  upon  English  and  Irish  "informers." 


20  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Brown  had  gone  along,  as  though  he  heard  nothing  of  it. 
But  when  Toombs  put  that  letter  in  the  papers,  charging  him 
specifically  with  stealing  land  from  orphan  children,  Brown 
came  at  Toombs,  as  a  bull  charges.  After  going  into  the  facts 
of  the  case,  and  giving  his  explanations,  Brown  ended  his 
letter  with  a  line  which  rang  like  a  rifle  shot.  "Unscrupulous 
liar,"  was  an  epithet  which  many  of  Toombs'  friends  would 
have  been  sorry  to  see  him  wear;  but  nobody,  excepting  a  few 
hot-heads,  thought  that  two  old  men,  like  Toombs  and  Brown, 
ought  to  fight  a  duel. 

Toombs  took  the  worst  possible  course.  He  blustered,  "made 
out  like"  he  was  going  to  challenge  Brown,  and  then  didn't 
do  it. 

There  is  only  one  explanation :  he  was  drinking  heavily,  and 
he  put  himself  in  the  hands  of  an  adviser  whose  lack  of  ability 
for  such  an  emergency  was  conspicuously  displayed. 

I  heard  Bishop  Pierce  say,  on  the  train,  between  Camak  and 
Sparta — "Toombs'  wife  wouldn't  let  him  fight." 

It  is  a  great  pity  that  she  was  unable  to  keep  him  from 
acting  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  most  men  believe  that  the 
challenge  would  have  been  sent,  had  it  not  been  so  certain  that 
it  would  be  accepted.  The  incident  damaged  Toombs  enor- 
mously ;  and  it  need  not  have  done  so. 

When  Ben  Hill  refused  Stephens'  challenge,  he  lost  nothing : 
quite  the  contrary.  When  Murphey  cursed  him  out  on  the 
streets  of  Atlanta,  and  Hill  said  to  him,  "I  do  not  propose  to 
give  you  the  opportunity  to  assassinate  me,"  nobody  blamed 
him.  If  Toombs  had  ignored  Brown,  altogether,  nothing  would 
have  been  thought  of  it.  But  handled  as  it  was,  it  made  every 
Democrat  in  Georgia  hang  his  head. 

Yet,  when  General  R.  E.  Lee  certifies  to  a  man's  courage,  as 
he  did  to  that  of  Toombs,  I  ask  for  no  better  evidence.  And 
when  to  Lee's  warm  testimony,  I  can  add  that  of  Lee's  "Old 
War  Horse,"  General  Longstreet,  I  feel  that  Pelion  has  been 
piled  on  Ossa. 

I  used  to  talk  with  the  old  General,  frequently,  when  attend- 
ing the  Legislature  in  1882-3.  He  was  up  there  much  of  his 
time,  and  had  become  the  curb-stone  attraction.  Wherever  he 
would  stop  to  talk,  a  crowd  would  collect.  Whenever  I  heard 
him,  he  was  cursing  somebody.  And  there  would  be  so  much 
wit  mingled  with  the  profanity,  that  the  crowd  would  be  kept 
laughing. 

I  asked  Henry  Grady,  one  day,  if  Toombs  was  popular  in 
Atlanta.  "He  would  be,"  answered  Grady,  "if  he  would  just 
cuss  the  same  men,  all  the  time." 

There  were  a  good  many  elements  in  Atlanta  at  the  time  that 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc.  21 


needed  cursing;  and  the  old  General  had  landed  on  Grady's 
own  coterie. 

The  only  time  I  ever  saw  Toombs  and  Stephens  together, 
was  at  the  Kimball  House,  in  the  Eighties.  "Little  Elleck*' 
was  in  his  roller-chair,  in  his  room,  and  there  were  a  number 
of  gentlemen  seated,  or  standing  around.  Toombs  entered 
and  dropped  into  a  chair.  He  had  dined,  and  had  the  appear- 
ance of  having  done  it  well.  He  looked  as  though  he  had  been 
free  with  "the  rosy."  I  can't  recall  anything  worth  recording. 
It  seemed  to  me  Mr.  Stephens  was  apprehensive  that  Toombs 
would  say  something  which  might,  in  the  presence  of  the 
gentlemen  in  the  room,  cause  him  embarrassment.  Indeed, 
Toombs  rather  enjoyed  "shocking"  the  Sage  of  Liberty  Hall. 

It  was  my  fortune  to  see,  at  the  Kimball,  the  old  General  and 
the  man  who  had  been  his  second  in  the  Joe  Brown  fiasco. 
They  were  coming  from  Toombs'  room  into  the  corridor.  They 
were  both  as  drunk  as  one  could  reasonably  expect.  I  stopped 
to  speak  to  the  General,  and  he  introduced  me  to  his  ex-second. 
Fixing  his  eyes,  with  all  the  solemnity  of  intoxication,  on 
Colonel  Xichols.  the  old  General  said: 

"I  put  my  honor  in  your  hands.*'   "And  they  are  perfectly 
clean'' — responded  the  tipsy  Xichols. 

Xotice  that  Xichols  only  spoke  of  his  hands — not  of  the 
"honor"  which  he  had  somewhat  dimmed.  I  wonder  if  Toombs' 
remark  was  meant  as  a  reproach ! 

The  only  time  I  ever  heard  him  make  a  speech  was  in  the 
anti-Colquitt  caucus,  in  1880.  He  made  a  witty,  dashingly 
eloquent  talk.  He  sailed  into  Gordon.  Brown,  and  Colquitt. 
He  repeated  his  statement  that  if  General  Gordon  had  been 
shot  in  the — indicating  the  region  with  a  backward  gesture — 
instead  of  the  face,  he  would  never  have  gone  to  the  Senate. 

Ex-Senator  Xorwood.  of  Savannah,  put  his  palmetto  fan  up 
to  his  face,  and  pretended  to  blush.  Others  laughed:  some 
Joe  Brown  men  left,  in  a  huff.  In  other  words,  the  speech 
hurt  the  cause. 

(By  the  bye.  General  Gordon's  retort  was  pretty  good. 
"When  told  of  the  place  where  Toombs  had,  by  supposition, 
placed  his  wound.  Gordon  said : 

"If  Toombs  had  been  where  I  was,  that's  just  where  he  would 
have  been  shot.") 

Those  trips  to  Atlanta  were  bad  for  Toombs.  He  fell  in 
among  thieves,  signed  a  Power  of  Attorney,  and  debts  to  a 
ruinous  amount  were  made  in  his  name.  TVheu  he  died,  his 
estate  was  reported  all  the  way  from  $1,000,000  to  $2,000,000. 
But  it  soon  transpired  that  the  Power  of  Attorney  had  been 
used  to  such  an  extent  that  his  heirs  got  very  little. 

In  his  old  age.  Mr.  Stephens  was  a  particularly  pathetic 


22  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

figure.  Fastened  to  his  roller-chair,  he  was  almost  as  helpless 
as  a  child.  In  fact,  I  suppose  that  his  man-servant  had  to 
wash  him,  dress  him,  lift  him  about,  in  practically  the  same 
way  that  infants  are  handled. 

His  scanty  hair  was  snow-white:  he  never  had  a  beard.  In 
his  pallid  face,  were  a  thousand  wrinkles,  little  and  big.  Here 
and  there,  on  his  cheeks,  were  livid,  uncanny  splotches.  His 
teeth  were  broken  and  black.  His  lips  were  thin  and  colorless. 
His  neck  and  head  were  large,  and  the  chin  strong.  His  eyes 
were  beautiful.  It  seemed  to  me  that  they  were  a  very  dark 
brown.    His  voice  was  thin  and  sharp — less  than  full  tenor. 

I  was  in  his  room  at  the  Kimball  when  he  sent  his  note  to 
the  dying  Ben  Hill,  asking  if  he,  Mr.  S.,  might  call.  Aclolph 
Brandt  was  present,  and  wrote  the  note.  Brandt's  handwriting 
was  perfectly  beautiful,  in  its  way,  being  a  pull-the-pen  style, 
with  much  heavy  shading  and  many  curves.  When  Brandt 
handed  his  production  to  Mr.  Stephens,  to  be  signed,  he 
exclaimed, 

"Why,  Brandt,  you  write  a  worse  hand  than  I  do." 

As  Mr.  Stephens'  writing  was  simply  unreadable,  Brandt's 
feeling  may  be  imagined. 

The  last  time  I  ever  saw  the  Sage,  he  was  on  his  death-bed. 
A  contested  election  case  which  the  Governor  would  have  to 
pass  on,  took  me  to  Atlanta,  but  we  found  Governor  Stephens 
too  sick  to  attend  to  it.  Of  course,  I  went  to  the  mansion  to 
see  him.  He  spoke  of  the  case  in  a  tone  which  indicated  that 
he  leaned  to  my  side  of  it,  and  was  confident  that  he  would 
soon  be  able  to  resume  his  duties. 

But  that  Savannah  trip  had  been  too  much  for  him.  We 
had  all  gone  down  there  to  the  Sesqui-Centennial.  The 
weather  was  extremely  bad.  Mr.  Stephens  had  delivered  a 
long  address  (to  which  few  paid  attention),  and  the  carriage 
in  which  he  was  driven  through  the  streets,  had  open  windows. 

That  night,  Dan  Rountree  and  I  (both  members  of  the  Leg- 
islature) ,  called  on  the  old  hero  at  his  room.  He  was  bright, 
and  seemed  none  the  worse  for  the  exposure  to  the  Aveather. 

Dan  went  up,  Avith  the  bow  and  smile  of  a  courtier,  and 
said,  as  he  extended  his  hand — " Governor  Stephens,  you  must 
let  me  congratulate  you  on  that  splendid  speech!" 

"Little  Elleck"  had  been  a  politician  himself,  and  he  knew 
the  breed  well  enough.    He  smiled,  and  said — 

"Oh,  I  got  out  of  it  tolerably  well." 

In  that  sense,  he  did;  but  it  was  the  general  opinion  that 
the  trip  cost  him  his  life. 

They  gave  the  Hero  a  great  funeral  in  Atlanta ;  but  I  think 
he  would  have  chosen  a  simple  burial,  at  the  family  graveyard, 
in  his  native  county — with  the  neighbors  to  come  in  their  quiet 
sorrow,  to  cover  him  up  with  the  sod  of  old  Taliaferro. 


The  Wise  Man  and  the  Silly  King 


The  Wise  Max. 

Have  you  read  of  the  Seven  Wise  Men  of  Greece? 

One  of  these  was  Solon.  Towering  above  the  common  run 
of  men  in  natural  capacity  and  in  service  to  the  State,  he  was 
made  the  chief  magistrate  of  his  people. 

So  great  was  the  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  that  he  could 
have  become  king,  could  have  founded  a  dynasty,  perhaps; 
and  thus  handed  down  to  his  descendants  the  power  which 
the  people  had  entrusted  to  him. 

Instead  of  this,  he  thought  only  of  the  public  welfare.  He 
was  so  much  of  a  man,  so  clear  in  his  ideas  of  true  glory,  and, 
true  nobility,  real  worth,  that  he  counted  as  nothing  the  accu- 
mulation of  money  and  the  holding  of  office. 

Therefore,  when  Solon,  as  law-giver  of  Athens,  had  reformed 
the  abuses  of  which  the  people  complained;  had  broken  up  the 
monopoly  of  wealth  and  power  which  the  few  had  grasped  for 
themselves;  had  put  back  into  the  hands  of  the  people  the 
reins  of  government,  he  went  away  into  foreign  lands,  leaving 
Athens  free. 

How  did  Solon  restore  democracy  to  the  people  of  his 
country  ? 

By  vesting  in  the  popular  assembly  the  final  word  as  to  laws 
and  as  to  judicial  decisions. 

In  our  day,  we  would  call  this  the  Referendum;  and  the 
average  Congressman  and  judge  would  have  to  ask  somebody 
what  was  meant  by  Referendum. 

The  Initiative  in  legislation,  Solon  vested  in  a  Council  of 
State,  to  which  the  lowest  order  of  citizens  had  the  right  to 
send  one  hundred  delegates.  The  other  three  orders  sent  each 
a  like  number.  Thus  the  lowest  order  had  a  share  in  the 
Initiative,  and  they  had  absolute  control  of  the  Referendum. 

Moreover,  any  citizen  whomsoever  could  at  any  time  bring 
any  offender,  public  or  private,  before  the  popular  assembly, 
and  have  any  breach  of  law  passed  upon  by  the  people. 

lhus,  you  see.  the  humblest  man  in  the  State  could  compel 
the  proudest  to  come  before  the  mass-meeting  of  the  people 
and  give  an  account  of  himself. 

In  practice,  this  probably  amounted  to  the  same  thing  as 
would  be  accomplished  by  what  is  known  as  the  Imperative 
Mandate  and  Right  of  Recall. 


24  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Such  was  Solon's  idea  of  democracy,  2,500  years  ago. 

By  giving  the  popular  assembly  the  right  to  pass  on  the 
conduct  of  citizens,  to  nullify  the  decisions  of  judges,  democ- 
racy was  made  supreme. 

The  people  ruled  themselves,  in  fact,  as  well  as  theory. 

Fool  decisions  got  knocked  in  the  head.  High-rolling  rascals 
were  brought  to  taw.  Common  sense  got  a  chance  to  be  heard, 
and  common  right  an  opportunity  to  assert  itself.  Corrupt 
judges  could  not  make  decisions  which  shocked  gods  and  men, 
without  running  against  the  wrath  of  an  outraged  people. 

Solon  effected  another  great  reform. 

He  found  his  country  brutalized  by  the  bloody  Code  of 
Draco.  The  punishment  of  death  was  inflicted  with  frightful 
facility.    Even  idleness  was  punished  with  death. 

In  fact,  Athens  was  about  as  barbarous  as  the  England  of 
two  hundred  years  ago,  when  more  than  one  hundred  crimes 
were  punishable  by  death. 

One  of  these  English  crimes  was  the  shooting  of  wild 
animals,  game,  in  a  nobleman's  park.  Another  was  the  cutting 
down  of  a  tree  therein.  Another  was  the  larceny  of  linen 
from  a  bleach  field. 

Solon  did  for  Athens  what  Samuel  Romilly  and  Henry 
Brougham  did  for  England — humanized  its  code. 

Yet  another  reform  this  great  Democrat  accomplished. 

He  found  the  finance  in  the  control  of  the  few.  These  greedy 
seekers  of  gain  had  so  fixed  the  laws  that,  in  the  race  of  life,  the 
poor  man  had  no  chance  against  the  rich.  The  laws  all  favored 
the  creditor  class.  The  debtor  class  was  kept  under  the  wheels. 
The  situation  had  become  so  bad  that  a  revolution  was  about 
to  break  out. 

The  masses  of  the  people  will  endure  a  great  deal — are  won- 
derfully patient  under  tyranny  and  robbery,  when  the  tyrant 
and  the  robber  can  give  to  his  crimes  the  sanction  of  a  written 
statute. 

But  there  is  a  limit.  Man  is  an  animal,  after  all,  and  when 
driven  too  far,  he  breaks  through  the  shell  which  civilization 
has  molded  round  him,  and  he  becomes  again  the  fierce  brute 
he  used  to  be,  when  he  lived  in  the  woods  and  ate  raw  meat. 

At  Athens,  the  creditor  class  had  almost  got  to  the  dead  line. 

Solon  with  one  sweep  of  his  pen  relieved  the  tension,  and 
saved  his  country. 

How? 

By  cheapening  money. 

The  historian  says,  he  depreciated  the  currency. 

What  he  did  was  this :  he  found  that  the  existing  supply  of 
money  had  been  gathered  into  the  hands  of  the  few.  There- 
fore, money  was  hard  to  get.    Therefore,  the  demand  for 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  25 


money  was  constantly  increased.  Therefore,  the  price  of  money 
constantly  rose.  Therefore,  debts  were  harder  to  pay  at  ma- 
turity, than  they  had  been  when  contracted.  The  poor  debtor 
had  to  buy  money  to  pay  his  debts  with;  and  the  amount  of 
labor  or  of  property  required  to  buy  enough  money  to  pay  the 
debts,  grew  greater  and  greater  all  the  time. 

This  was  unjust.  Solon  expanded  the  currency;  that  is,  he 
increased  the  supply  of  money.  In  the  language  of  today, 
money-sharks  had  "cornered"  the  market,  and  Solon  smashed 
the  "corner." 

He  also  lowered  the  rate  of  interest  on  loans,  and  abolished 
imprisonment  for  debt.  The  result  of  these  reforms  was  most 
happy.  Debtors  found  that  more  money  meant  cheaper  money, 
and  were  thus  saved  from  ruin;  whereas  the  creditors  lost 
nothing  but  an  unfair  advantage  which  they  had  been  harshly 
using  to  oppress  their  fellow-men. 

The  Silly  King. 

In  those  days,  there  lived  a  certain  king  whose  name  became 
a  synonym  for  riches,  just  as  the  name  of  Solon  became  the 
synonym  for  wisdom. 

This  king  was  Croesus,  and  he  ruled  over  Lydia,  in  Asia 
Minor,  an  exceedingly  rich  and  fertile  country. 

In  the  eyes  of  Croesus,  there  was  nothing  so  beautiful  as  gold, 
silver  and  precious  stones.  In  his  philosophy,  the  purpose  of 
living  was  to  get  rich.  Money,  according  to  his  belief,  was  the 
all  in  all :  whoever  had  the  greatest  amount  of  money  was  nec- 
essarily the  happiest  man,  the  strongest  man,  the  man  to  be 
most  loved,  feared,  courted,  and  admired. 

So  the  Lydian  king  bethought  him  not  of  just  laws,  honest 
administration,  nor  the  welfare  of  his  subjects,  and  of  future 
generations !  Xeither  was  he  diligent  in  the  seeking  after 
knowledge,  nor  in  the  study  of  problems,  "What  makes  a  State  ? 
What  is  true  prosperity  ?  What  is  real  strength  ?  What  is  the 
right  road  to  happiness?  What  are  the  things  which  a  man 
should  do  all  the  days  of  his  life,  with  whatever  strength  the 
gods  have  given  him,  in  order  that,  when  the  evening  is  here,  he 
may  look  with  serene  and  fearless  eyes  upon  the  Shadow  that 
comes  creeping  on,  creeping  on,  to  throw  the  shroud  of  eternal 
night  over  him?" 

No;  Croesus  gave  no  thought  to  such  things. 
Far  and  wide  he  sought  gold,  silver,  precious  stones.  Day 
after  day,  year  after  year,  Croesus  heaped  up  gold,  silver, 
precious  stones. 

By  fair  means  or  foul,  by  straight  ways  and  crooked,  by 


26 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


lawful  methods  and  lawless,  Croesus  added  talent  after  talent, 
until  his  treasury  was  choked  with  gold. 

And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  King  of  Lydia  prided  himself 
upon  his  wealth  more  than  upon  any  other  thing  that  he 
possessed. 

He  did  not  claim  that  he  was  the  wisest  man,  nor  the  strong- 
est man,  nor  the  bravest  man,  nor  the  noblest  man,  nor  the 
most  industrious  man,  nor  the  most  useful  man.  He  did  not 
pride  himself  upon  having  the  best  mind,  body,  character,  and 
purpose.  He  did  not  boast  of  anything  that  he  could  think, 
speak,  write,  or  do,  that  was  better  than  what  other  men  could 
think,  speak,  write,  or  do. 

He  simply  thought  that  he  was  the  happiest,  greatest  man 
on  earth,  because  he  hacl  scraped  together  a  larger  quantity  of 
a  certain  sort  of  metal  than  any  other  living  man. 

So  it  came  to  pass  that  whenever  a  traveler  of  distinction 
reached  Sardis,  the  capital  of  Lydia,  the  king  would  take  the 
traveler  to  see  his  treasure, — his  gold,  silver,  and  precious 
stones. 

When  the  traveler  came  into  the  treasure-house,  and  looked 
upon  those  vast  heaps  of  riches,  greater  than  he  had  ever 
dreamed  of  before,  his  hands  would,  of  course,  fly  up  and  his 
eyes  open  out,  and  his  mouth  spring  apart  and  he  would  make 
exclamations  of  wonder,  admiration,  and  reverence  whicii 
would  cause  the  silly  king  to  chuckle  and  chortle  and  puff 
Tiimself  up  with  unspeakable  pleasure  and  pride. 

Then  as  the  traveler  went  upon  his  way  into  other  lands,  he 
would  naturally  tell  the  tale  to  all  whom  he  met — the  won- 
drous tale  of  Croesus  and  his  gold. 

Thus  the  fame  of  Croesus  waxed  exceedingly  great  in  all  the 
^countries  round  about. 

Of  course,  Croesus  hacl  counted  upon  that  result  when  he 
showed  the  travelers  his  treasures.  He  wanted  to  be  talked 
about  as  the  richest  man  in  the  world — as  the  man  who  was 
happier,  better,  and  greater  than  any  other  man. 

What  did  Croesus  intend  to  do  with  all  this  treasure? 

He  did  not  know.  He  had  never  given  a  thought  to  that. 
His  purpose  was  to  keep  on  getting  it — more,  more,  more  and 
ever  more — until  he  had  the  greatest  fortune  in  the  world. 

Then  what? 

Go  on  getting  more  and  more  and  more. 

There  never  was  a  definite  plan  or  purpose  in  his  head 
beyond  the  getting  of  the  money.  What  to  do  with  it,  after  he 
got  it,  was  a  mere  irrelevant  question,  not  to  be  considered  or 
tolerated  for  a  moment. 

Drive  on  and  on  and  on :  get  more  and  more  and  more : — 
that  was  the  purpose  of  Croesus. 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


27 


And  it  came  to  pass  that  Solon,  in  the  course  of  his  travels, 
reached  Sardis.  and  he  was  received  as  an  honored  guest  at  the 
court  of  the  king — for  Solon's  renown  as  a  ruler  and  a  sage 
had  gone  abroad  into  many  foreign  lands. 

In  the  midst  of  that  brilliant  court,  in  the  palace  of  the 
king.  Solon  was  the  same  man  that  he  had  been  at  home, 
unabashed,  clear-eyed,  sensible,  courageous,  strong  in  his 
glorious  manhood.  His  eyes  were  not  dazzled  by  the  glitter 
of  gems,  his  spirit  was  not  over-awed  by  the  display  of  power, 
his  intelligence  was  not  imposed  upon  by  the  pompous  display 
of  royal  grandeur. 

Swelling  with  self-complacency  at  the  fine  show  that  his 
court  presented  to  the  Greek,  the  king  asked  him,  "Have  you 
ever  seen  a  happier  man  than  myself?" 

With  great  composure  and  impoliteness.  Solon  answered, 
"Yes.  It  was  a  man  named  Tellus, — a  plain,  substantial  citizen 
of  Athens,  who  begot  valuable  children,  supported  his  family 
in  comfort  by  honest  toil,  and  died  gloriously  in  the  defense 
of  his  country." 

How  this  impolite  reply  to  the  king's  question  must  have 
scandalized  the  courtiers  and  shocked  the  king! 

But  Croesus  decided  to  give  the  Greek  one  more  trial,  so 
he  asked: 

"Well,  after  Tellus.  have  vou  ever  known  a  happier  man 
than  I?" 

Solon,  as  composed  and  impolite  as  ever,  replied,  "Yes. 
There  were  two  brothers.  Cleobis  and  Biton,  famous  for  the 
affection  in  which  they  held  each  other,  and  for  their  loving 
and  dutiful  behavior  toward  their  mother.  One  day  when  she 
was  ready  to  go  to  the  temple  to  worship,  the  oxen  were  not 
ready  to  be  yoked  to  the  cart,  and  these  devoted  sons  put 
themselves  in  harness  and  drew  their  mother,  amid  the  acclam- 
ations of  the  people,  to  Juno's  temple.  After  the  sacrifice, 
they  drank  a  cheerful  cup  with  their  friends,  and  then  laid 
down  to  rest.  They  rose  no  more — having  expired  during  the 
night,  without  sorrow  or  pain,  in  the  midst  of  their  glory." 

Croesus  was  displeased,  sorely  displeased.  Plain  speech 
delights  not  the  ear  of  silly  kings,  or  silly  courtiers,  or  silly 
subjects.  But  Croesus  had  one  resource  left:  he  would  show 
Solon  his  treasure. 

Then  he  would  flatter:  then  he  would  fawn;  then  he  would 
see  what  a  mistake  he  had  made  in  not  declaring  Croesus  to 
be  the  happiest  of  men. 

So  they  led  Solon  into  the  treasure  chamber,  and  showed 
him  the  vast  accumulation  of  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones 
— wealth  lying  there  idle:  Avealth  which  had  come  from  all 
parts  of  the  world:  wealth  which  had  once  been  the  possession 


28  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


of  thousands  of  others;  wealth  which  denied  the  comfort  of 
life  to  the  many,  in  order  that  the  one  should  have  more  than 
he  could  ever  need. 

Very  coolly  Solon  looked  upon  the  heaps  of  gold,  in  no  wise 
overcome,  his  clear  eyes  seeing  all  things  in  their  true  relation 
as  before — which  is  the  thing  we  call  Wisdom. 

To  the  proud  and  silly  king,  he  said, 

"If  one  comes  against  you  who  has  better  iron  than  you, 
this  gold  will  soon  be  his." 

When  Solon  departed  from  Sardis,  he  probably  left  behind 
him  the  worst  name  that  the  silly  king  and  the  silly  courtiers 
knew  how  to  give  to  one  of  the  Seven  Wise  Men  of  Greece — 
to  one  of  the  noblest  men  who  ever  worked  for  the  betterment 
of  the  condition  of  his  fellow-men. 

What  was  the  meaning  of  Solon? 

By  iron,  he  meant  weapons  of  war;  and,  of  course,  the  best 
men  best  wield  the  weapons  of  war. 

Solon  meant  that  mere  wealth  did  not  make  a  king  or  a 
nation  great  and  strong,  happy  or  truly  prosperous.  He  had 
already  said  to  his  own  people  of  Athens: 

"Thine  own  sons,  O  Athens,  are  thy  fate, 

And,  slaves  to  gain,  destroy  the  unconquered  state." 

Solon's  prophecy  came  true  in  both  cases. 

Cyrus,  rushing  down  from  the  highlands  of  Media  and 
Persia,  followed  by  hardy  mountaineers,  having  better  iron 
than  Croesus,  scattered  the  feeble  troops  of  the  feeble  king,  and 
took  his  gold. 

And  Athens,  having  become  a  slave  to  gain,  lost  her  strength, 
sinking  into  the  same  wealth-loving  decadence  which  prepared 
for  Cyrus  his  conquest  over  Crcesus. 

In  our  own  country  we  are  making  the  same  fatal  mistake 
about  gold,  about  money,  about  wealth. 

We  are  nursing  the  insane  delusion  that,  because  our  fortunes, 
individual,  corporate  and  national,  are  the  largest  ever  known, 
we  are  the  strongest,  greatest  people  in  the  world. 

What  madness,  what  folly !  The  deadliest  weakness  of  our 
system,  our  nation,  is  this  same  gold,  this  same  wealth. 

For  the  man  is  blind,  blind,  blind,  who  does  not  see  that,  as 
you  take,  from  the  common  stock,  the  unequal  shares  which 
millionaires  get,  you  increase  the  numbers  of  the  unequal 
shares  which  the  worker  gets. 

Show  me  a  Rockefeller  fortune,  and  I  will  show  you — as  its 
logical,  inevitable  offset,  a  million  men  who  have  never  a 
surplus  dollar  to  lay  by. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


29 


TVe  are  grinding  up  thousands  of  children,  the  seed-corn,  to 
produce  a  dozen  millionaires,  when  these  twelve  millionaires, 
as  men,  may  be  less  valuable  to  the  State  than  any  twelve  of 
those  children  would  have  been. 

In  order  that  some  department-store  may  amass  a  fortune 
for  its  owner,  poor  girls  are  paid  five  dollars  per  week;  and 
when  the  girl  complains  that  she  cannot  live  on  five  dollars  a 
week — in  Chicago,  Philadelphia.  Boston,  or  Xew  York — she 
is  told,  with  a  cynicism  that  might  abash  the  devil  and  cause 
a  shudder  throughout  hell,  "Get  you  a  gentleman  friend!" 

Lee  Meriwether,  special  agent  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of 
Labor,  made  diligent  investigation  of  the  conditions  of  the 
working  classes,  both  in  Europe  and  America. 

From  his  book  called.  ''The  Tramp  at  Home."  I  quote 
(page  16)  : 

"Molly  Smith  went  and  told  her  boss  she  couldn't  live  on 
her  wages;  she  was  all  the  time  hungry,  and  in  the  winter 
all  the  time  cold. 

"He  said  to  Molly : 

" 4 You  are  a  pretty  girl ;  why  don't  you  get  a  young  gentle- 
man friend  to  help  you?'  That  made  Molly  mad.  She  flew 
up  and  talked  back,  and  got  turned  off.  It  was  the  dead  of 
winter.  She  was  took  sick  because  she  had  no  fire,  and — well 
I  don't  know  just  how  it  happened.  All  I  know  is.  most  any 
night,  they  say,  you  can  see  Molly  on  the  Bowery.  She  never 
comes  nigh  us  any  more.'' 

Molly  had  been  a  factory  girl.  Factories  are  protected  from 
foreign  competition,  you  know,  in  order  that  they  may  be  able 
to  pay  big  wages  to  American  labor.  Molly  had  been  getting 
$3.90  per  week  for  her  work  in  the  factory.  Out  of  this  she 
had  to  pay  room-rent  and  supply  herself  with  food,  clothing, 
fire,  and  all  other  necessaries  of  life. 

Mr.  Meriwether  made  systematic  investigation  in  several  of 
the  big  cities  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  a  large  percentage, 
of  the  fallen  women  were  graduates  from  the  shop-girl  class, 
who  had  tried  to  live  on  their  pitiable  wages  and  simply 
coudn't. 

Mr.  Meriwether's  lady  assistant  was  sent  by  him  to  make 
experiments  in  person  with  employers.  "In  some  places  the 
manager  bluntly  said.  'You  are  not  good-looking  enough.'  At 
other  places  where  the  need  of  new  hands  was  more  pressing, 
'I  was  offered,'  she  reports,  'three  dollars  per  week.' 

She  remonstrated. 

"But  I  cannot  live  on  three  dollars.  My  car  fare  will  be 
sixty  cents.    I  live  four  miles  from  your  factory." 

The  manager  answered.  "We  can't  help  that.  You  must 
get  a  friend  to  help  you." 


so 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


In  other  words,  she  must  barter  virtue  for  bread. 

Mucianus  declared,  "Moneys  are  the    sinews  of  war." 

Machiavelli  answered,  "There  are  no  sinews  of  war  but  the 
very  sinews  of  the  arms  of  valiant  men." 

There  is  no  strength  to  a  man  or  to  a  nation  in  wealth,  alone. 
The  arms  of  valiant  men,  the  strength  of  strong  men,  always 
constitute  the  true  greatness  of  a  people. 

We  are  growing  richer,  and  we  are  growing  weaker.  In  the 
advance  of  the  army,  the  human  debris  in  its  rear  grows 
appallingly  larger  and  larger.  In  the  onward  sweep  of  the 
fleet,  the  wrecks  that  lie  behind  us  cover  an  immensity  of 
horizon. 

Money  is  easy  to  find :  men  are  growing  scarce.  The  parrot 
is  everywhere :  the  eagle,  seldom  seen.  "Poll-Parroting"  is  the 
order  of  the  day — in  the  sumptuous  temples,  in  editorial  rooms, 
in  legislative  halls,  in  legal  arguments,  in  judicial  opinions, 
in  magazines  and  books,  in  universities,  in  the  circles  of 
business. 

Repeat  what  those  in  authority  say,  imitate  what  the  ma- 
jority do,  conform  to  the  current  creed,  follow  the  crowd,  play 
the  game, — money,  money,  money  talks ! 

How  much  wealth  do  you  want? 

What  is  the  limit  ? 

There  is  no  limit. 

What  is  vour  purpose;  what  will  you  do  with  it  after  you 
.get  it  ? 

That  is  an  irrelevant  matter;  the  question  is  ruled  out. 

We  mean  to  get  more,  and  more,  ever  more !  Driven  on,  and 
on,  and  on ;  no  matter  who  gets  run  over ;  no  matter  how  many 
lose  their  mickle  to  make  our  muckle — drive  on  and  get  more ! 

And  so,  with  a  headlong  rush  after  a  false  ideal  of  happi- 
ness, of  strength,  of  prosperity,  we  are  aping  the  silly  king,  and 
denying  ourselves  the  wisdom  of  the  sage. 


A  Gross  Insult  to  the  Scotch 


The  following  appeared  in  the  press  several  clays  ago: 

"CARNEGIE  TO  NEGROES. 

'"Says  Lowest  in  South  Is  Ahead  of  His  Ancestors  Two  Hundred 

Years  Ago. 

"New  York,  Dec.  1.— Andrew  Carnegie  said  today  that  the  lowest 
negro  of  the  South  is  more  advanced  than  were  his  (Carnegie's) 
ancestors  in  Scotland  two  hundred  years  ago.  He  was  speaking 
before  the  Armstrong  Association. 

"  'Talk  about  uplifting  the  negro  race,"  declared  Mr.  Carnegie, 
'those  who  have  attended  the  industrial  institutions  now  established 
are  already  uplifted,  and  they,  in  turn,  are  spreading  their  knowl- 
edge into  every  cotton-field  and  pine-belt  south  of  the  Potomac'  " 

Of  Andrew  Carnegie  himself.  I  do  not  care  to  speak.  How 
he  got  his  money,  how  he  spends  it.  his  relations  with  the 
controlling  powers  of  this  Government,  his  social  equality 
practices,  his  donations  to  negro  colleges — all  these  matters 
are  foreign  to  my  immediate  purpose,  which  is  to  prove  that, 
in  saying  what  he  did  about  the  Scotch,  he  lied,  either  wilfully 
or  ignorantly :  and  that  in  blarneying  the  Afro-Americans, 
he  lowered  himself,  at  the  same  time  that  he  insulted  every 
man  that  has  in  his  veins  the  blood  of  old  Scotland. 

First  of  all.  the  greater  portion  of  the  population  of  that 
country  came  from  the  same  stock  which  peopled  England, 
lierself.  The  Lowlanders  were  Germanic  in  their  ancestry — - 
and  there  never  was  a  time  when  their  condition  was  not  vastly 
superior  to  that  of  the  negroes  of  today.  Time  and  again,  it 
has  been  demonstrated  that  the  Germanic  tribes  of  the  most 
primitive  eras  exhibited  such  magnificent  traits  of  character 
that  our  present  civilization  is  the  logical  and  evolutionary 
result. 

In  the  value  placed  upon  personal  liberty  and  independence : 
in  the  love  of  home  and  the  domestic  virtues :  in  the  high  and 
manly  pride  which  preferred  death  to  dishonor :  in  the  respect 
shown  to  women,  and  the  terrible  punishment  meted  out  by  the 
tribe  to  the  adulteress:  in  truthfulness,  honesty,  love  of  justice, 
admiration  for  mental  and  physical  excellence — they  were  as 
superior  to  the  negro  of  today,  as  the  respectable  negro  is  to 
that  occasional  white  man  who  disgraces  his  color,  reveals  his 
constitutional  baseness,  and  fills  all  of  us  with  a  profound  sense 
of  disgust  and  loathing. 


32  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


In  embryo,  those  Teutonic  ancestors  of  ours  had  established 
the  system  of  things  as  we  now  see  it.  Trial  by  jury,  popular 
self-government,  direct  legislation,  equality  before  the  law, 
monogamous  marriage,  are  institutions  whose  sources  have  to 
be  traced  back  to  the  far-stretching  woods  of  Germany.  To 
compare  such  a  race  to  the  poor,  thick-skulled,  bestial,  unpro- 
gressive,  purely  receptive  and  imitative  negroes,  is  monstrous. 

In  the  wilder,  and  more  inaccessible  Highlands,  as  well  as 
in  the  Hebrides,  a  different  people  were  found.  These  Gaels 
belonged  to  the  great  Celtic  branch  of  the  human  family.  The 
territory  held  by  them  was  bleak  and  barren,  its  climate  rig- 
orous, its  advantages  few.  Consequently,  the  Highlanders 
were  poor.  The  hut  of  the  tribesman  was  destitute  of  the 
comfort  of  the  average  negro  house.  His  wearing  apparel  was 
not  so  abundant,  nor  so  good,  as  that  of  the  industrious  African 
of  our  own  times.  There  was  more  illiteracy  among  the  Celts 
than  among  the  blacks,  upon  whose  "education"  we  have  squan- 
dered so  many  millions  of  dollars. 

I  grant  you  that  the  Highlander  lived  a  hard  life,  and  there 
was  no  silver  in  his  purse,  that  his  hovel  was  pitifully  humble, 
that  he  wore  shabby  clothes,  that  he  went  bareheaded  and  bare- 
footed, that  he  couldn't  sign  his  name,  and  that  his  food  was 
scanty  and  coarse.  But  what  was  he,  as  a  man  ?  What  sort  of 
women  were  his  mother,  sister,  wife  and  daughter  ?  What  was 
the  character  of  the  Highlanders?  What  was  their  standard 
of  morals?  What  was  the  degree  of  their  untutored,  undevel- 
oped intelligence?  What  manly  traits  distinguished  the  men* 
What  womanly  virtues,  the  women? 

Knowing  the  splendid  record  of  this  race,  and  realizing  how 
huge  is  the  debt  which  modern  civilization  owes  to  it,  my  blood 
boils  with  indignation  against  the  negro-loving  millionaire, 
who  befouls  his  own  nest,  and  traduces  the  great  people  from 
whom  he  sprung. 

Where  in  the  history  of  the  world,  was  a  more  heroic  stand 
made  for  freedom,  for  independence?  For  ages,  Britain  ex- 
erted her  utmost  strength  to  enslave  her  weaker  neighbor,  and 
she  never  could  do  it.  A  simple  gentleman,  William  Wallace* 
shook  England's  power  to  its  foundations;  and  at  Bannock- 
burn,  the  British  got  the  worst  whipping,  in  the  open  field,  that 
they  ever  suffered.  Even  the  Scotch-Irish  Andrew  Jackson  did 
not  beat  them  at  New  Orleans  more  ruinously  than  did  Kobert 
Bruce  at  Bannockburn.  Ireland  she  could  conquer,  because  a 
Pope's  decree  had  hopelessly  divided  the  Irish  people;  but  no 
English  army  could  do  much  more  in  Scotland  than  to  hold 
the  ground  it  camped  on.  In  the  Highlands,  they  could  accom- 
plish nothing.  Along  those  mist  and  cloud-crowned  peaks,  no 
white  flag  of  submission  ever  flew.    Not  until  after  the  Union 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


33 


with  England,  did  British  soldiers  penetrate  those  wilds — 
which  Rome  herself  had  vainly  endeavored  to  subdue.  The 
great  wall  which  an  Emperor  threw  from  sea  to  sea.  to  protect 
England  from  the  Scotch,  is  a  memorial  to  their  valor,  their 
intrepidity,  their  audacity,  which  time  can  not  efface. 

"What  people  ever  resisted  so  constantly  and  successfully  the 
tyranny  of  Kings  ?  To  their  English  and  French  neighbors, 
they  set  the  inspiring  example  of  rising  in  arms  against  their 
monarchs,  and  putting  them  to  death !  They  were  pioneers  in 
the  fight  against  priests  and  Popes.  They  would  brook  no 
encroachments  upon  their  liberties.  They  were  ever  ready 
to  seize  their  weapons  and  battle  for  principle — cost  what  it 
might. 

What  finer  soldier  than  the  Scotchman  ever  walked  a  battle- 
field ?  In  the  thin  red  line  of  Great  Britain,  which  has  carried 
her  drum-beat  around  the  world,  who  has  been  more  gallant 
than  he  of  the  kilt  and  the  tartan?  From  the  lips  of  the 
greatest  of  all  Captains,  the  Scot's  Greys  at  "Waterloo  wrung 
the  tribute  of  admiration:  and  the  beleaguered  of  Lucknow 
were  thrilled  with  the  certainty  that  they  would  be  saved, 
when  the  wings  of  the  wind  brought  the  bagpipe  strains  of 
"The  Campbells  Are  Coming!" 

In  Spain,  in  France,  in  Germany,  in  America,  in  Hindustan, 
in  Egypt,  the  Celt  of  the  Highlands,  like  the  Celt  of  Ireland, 
has  been  the  very  beau  ideal  of  a  soldier.  It  was  the  High- 
landers who  turned  the  tide  of  battle  at  Lutzen.  and  gained  for 
Gustavus  Adolphus  the  last  victory  of  his  career. 

Who  drove  the  human  wedge  into  the  Austrian  center  at 
TTagram.  and  snatched  the  army  of  France  from  the  doom 
which  hung  over  it  ?  Macdonald — the  Scotchman.  Who  was 
faithful  to  his  Emperor  when  every  other  Marshal  had  deserted 
him?  The  same  leonine  Macdonald.  Who  was  the  most  splen- 
did commander  of  independent  cavalry  that  the  world  ever 
saw  ?  General  " Jeb"  Stuart — lineal  descendant  of  the  Stuarts 
of  Scotland.  Whose  brigade  was  so  conspicuously  daring,  in 
the  "Army  of  Northern  Virginia."  that  it  won  the  proud  dis- 
tinction of  being  known  as  the  "Laurel''  Brigade?  Angus 
Mac-donald's.  Who  was  it  that  Lee  had  chosen  to  take  the 
place  of  Stonewall  Jackson?  John  B.  Gordon — whose  genius 
for  war  continued  to  develop,  and  whose  bravery  was  proverbial. 

•'Bring  on  the  tartan!"  shouted  the  British  General  at  Xew 
Orleans,  when  the  other  regiments  had  broken  and  fled  before 
those  concealed,  inaccessible  foes  who  were  enfilading  them 
with  deadly  rifles.  At  the  "double."  came  the  Highlanders: 
the  mist  lifted;  they  saw  that  they  had  been  sent  into  a  death- 
trap ;  and  they  stood  still,  facing  the  flaming  breastworks ;  and 


34 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


they  fell  in  their  tracks — their  dead  bodies  looking  like  the 
brigade  in  repose ! 

Here  is  Lord  Macaulay's  tribute  to  the  Scotch  three  hundred 
years  ago*: 

"The  populaton  of  Scotland,  with  the  exception  of  the  Celtic 
tribes  which  were  thinly  scattered  over  the  Hebrides  and  over  the 
mountainous  parts  of  the  northern  shores,  was  of  the  same  blood 
with  the  population  of  England,  and  spoke  a  tongue  which  did  not 
differ  from  the  purest  English  more  than  the  dialects  of  Somerset- 
shire and  Lancashire  differed  from  each  other.  In  Ireland,  on  the 
contrary,  the  population,  with  the  exception  of  the  small  English 
colony  near  the  coast,  was  Celtic,  and  still  kept  the  Celtic'  speech 
manners. 

"In  natural  courage  and  intelligence  both  the  nations  which  now 
became  connected  with  England  ranked  high.  In  perseverance,  in 
self-command,  in  forethought,  in  all  the  virtues  which  conduce  to 
success  in  life,  the  Scots  have  never  been  surpassed.  The  Irish,  on 
the  other  hand,  were  distinguished  by  qualities  which  tend  to  make 
•  men  interesting  rather  than  prosperous.  They  were  an  ardent  and 
impetuous  race,  easily  moved  to  tears  or  to  laughter,  to  fury  or  to 
love.  Alone  among  the  nations  of  Northern  Europe  they  had  the 
susceptibility,  the  vivacity,  the  natural  turn  for  acting  and  rhetoric, 
which  are  indigenous  to  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  In 
mental  cultivation,  Scotland  had  an  indisputable  superiority!  Though 
that  kingdom  was  then  the  poorest  in  Christendom,  it  already  vied 
in  every  branch  of  learning  with  the  most  favored  countries. 
Scotsmen,  whose  dwellings  and  whose  food  were  as  wretched  as 
those  of  the  Icelanders  of  our  time,  wrote  Latin  verse  with  more 
than  the  delicacy  of  Vida,  and  made  discoveries  in  science  which 
would  have  added  to  the  renown  of  Galileo.  Ireland  could  boast 
of  no  Buchanan  or  Napier.  The  genius  with  which  her  aboriginal 
inhabitants  were  largely  endowed  showed  itself  as  yet  only  in 
ballads  which,  wild  and  rugged  as  they  were,  seemed  to  the  judging 
eye  of  Spenser  to  contain  a  portion  of  the  pure  gold  of  poetry. 
/  "Scotland,  in  becoming  part  of  the  British  monarchy,  preserved 
her  dignity.  Having,  during  many  generations,  courageously  with- 
stood the  English  arms,  she  was  now  joined  to  her  stronger  neigh- 
bor on  the  most  honorable  terms.  She  gave  a  King  instead  of 
receiving  one.  She  retained  her  own  constitution  and  laws.  Her 
,  tribunals  and  parliaments  remained  entirely  independent  of  the 
tribunals  and  parliaments  which  sate  at  Westminister.  The  admin- 
istration of  Scotland  was  in  Scottish  hands;  for  no  Englishman  had 
any  motive  to  emigrate  northward,  and  to  contend  with  the 
shrewdest  and  the  most  pertinacious  of  all  races  for  what  was  to  be 
scraped  together  in  the  poorest  of  all  treasuries." 

The  clan  was  the  family  group:  the  blood  of  the  Chief  was 
the  blood  of  his  men,  and' the  tie  of  affection  ran  from  cottage 
to  castle.  The  clan  would  die  for  the  Chief ;  the  Chief,  for  the 
clan.  On  the  day  of  battle,  he  walked  in  front,  not  behind: 
where  they  fought,  he  fought:  where  they  fell,  he  fell.  His 
quarrel  was  theirs;  theirs,  his:  friends  and  foes  of  the  Chief 
were  those  of  the  clan.  Wrong  the  clansman,  and  the  Chief 
flew  to  arms :  wrong  the  Laird,  and  the  clan  rallied,  as  one  man. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary.  Etc. 


35 


Never  did  the  castle  shut  its  gates  in  the  face  of  the  poorest 
tribesman:  never  did  the  Chief  kindle,  in  vain,  his  signal  fires 
along  the  mountain  tops. 

So  magnificent  was  their  loyalty  to  one  another  and  to  the 
Chief,  that  they  would  deliberately  go  to  a  cruel  death  rather 
than  betray  a  kinsman  or  a  Laird.  When  the  Clan  Chatten 
revolted  under  the  regent  Murray,  two  hundred  of  the  rebels 
were  condemned  to  die :  each  of  these  two  hundred  was  offered 
life  and  freedom,  if  he  would  tell  where  his  Chief  was  con- 
cealed, and  not  one  of  them  would  have  life  on  such  dishonor- 
able terms.  When  the  Pretender.  Prince  Charles  Stuart,  was 
a  fugutive  in  the  Highlands,  every  man  in  Scotland  knew  of 
the  rich  reward  to  be  won  by  the  Prince's  betrayal;  but  not  a 
soul  wavered  in  its  self-sacrificing  loyalty.  The  Pretender  got 
safely  away  to  France:  his  Highland  followers  remained,  to 
meet  their  doom;  and  many  a  gory  head  was  stuck  on  pikes, 
not  only  in  Scotland,  but  in  England. 

(In  Pepys'  "Diary"  it  is  noted  that  the  last  of  the  heads  that 
had  been  spitted  on  Temple  Bar,  had  rotted  away  and  fallen 
from  the  spike.) 

To  the  defeated  foe.  they  were  cruel;  but  at  a  time  when 
other  Europeans  robbed  and  murdered  the  shipwrecked  ma- 
riner, the  Highlander  gave  him  food,  shelter  and  protection. 
Openly,  daringly  they  would  raid  the  Border  and  "lift" 
cattle, — that  was  open,  honorable  war  and  spoil,  as  they  viewed 
it :  but.  in  the  relation  of  man  to  man.  honesty  was  the  rigid 
rule  of  life. 

The  Minstrel  was  the  Gulf  Stream,  in  this  Ocean  of  poverty 
and  illiteracy :  with  his  harp  and  his  songs,  he  warmed  the  life 
of  the  lowly,  as  well  as  the  great.  He  was  at  once  bard,  his- 
torian and  teacher.  The  very  children  learned  his  melodies, 
and  his  stories  of  Scotland's  past.  To  the  cotter's  hearth,  he 
brought  sentiment  which  elevated,  knowledge  which  to  some 
extent  supplied  the  place  of  education,  and  rhapsodies,  set  to 
music,  which  kindled  intense  pride  of  race  and  love  of  country. 

When  was  there  ever,  in  the  existence  of  the  negro,  an  in- 
fluence like  unto  that  of  the  wandering  Minstrel  of  the  High- 
lands? Blind  Homers  may  have  sung  amid  those  sequestered 
glens :  Blondels.  unknown  to  fame,  harped  by  those  dim  lakes 
and  tarns.  Do  we  not  know  that  it  was  a  work  of  love  for 
Walter  Scott,  Eobert  Burns,  and  the  "Ettrick  Shepherd^ 
to  rescue  from  oblivion  the  melodies  and  the  poesy  of 
those  ancient  times,  three  and  four  hundred  years  ago? 
Don't  we  know  that  many  of  the  finest  songs  of  Burns  are 
nothing  Jbut  the  modernized  versions  of  those  gems  of  ancient 
Scotch  Minstrelsy?    Does  not  the  very  music  of  those  lyrics 


3-Sketches 


36  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

which  our  own  generation  most  loves,  come  down  to  us  from 
the  Highlanders  of  centuries  past? 

It  is  now  known  that  Macpherson's  "Ossian,"  whose  weird 
sublimity  and  wild  imagery  appealed  so  powerfully  to  the 
imagination  of  Thomas  Jefferson  and  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  is 
based  upon  fragments  of  Gaelic  minstrelsy  sixteen  hundred 
years  old.  That  Macpherson  himself  did  not  "fake"  these 
poems,  but  merely  modernized  them,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
they  are  to  be  seen  in  the  original  tongue,  both  in  Edinburgh 
and  Dublin.  (In  early  times  Scotland  and  the  West  Coast  of 
Ireland  were  peopled  by  the  same  race,  speaking  the  same 
language.)  The  Ossianic  poems  were  handed  down  tradition- 
ally from  generation  to  generation.  Therefore,  Scotland  had 
a  literature,  similar  to  that  of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  Persia 
and  Chaldea,  as  far  back  as  the  third  century  after  Christ ! 

Allan  Ramsay,  who  wrote  the  best  pastoral  poem  that  litera- 
ture contains,  "The  Gentle  Shepherd,"  was  born  in  1686 :  does 
not  his  fame  and  success  bear  witness  to  the  mental  elevation 
of  the  Scotch  at  that  distant  era?  What  would  "the  lowest 
negroes  of  the  South"  know  or  care  about  a  masterpiece  of 
pastoral  poetry  ?  They  cannot  even  understand  and  appreciate 
the  very  simple  rhymes  of  Paul  Dunbar.  Phillis  Wheatley  is 
about  as  far  as  the  average  negro  can  go,  in  that  direction. 
A  banjo  and  a  fool  jingle,  without  real  meaning  or  sequence,  is 
the  preference  of  nine-tenths  of  the  Southern  blacks.  They 
could  no  more  enjoy  the  wonderful  melodies  of  the  Scotch 
improvisatore,  than  they  could  change  their  wool  into  hair. 

More  than  four  hundred  years  ago,  Scotland  had  a  King 
who  was  a  patron  of  Letters,  and  who  himself  wrote  poetry. 
About  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  she  had  a  Queen  who 
both  in  Paris  and  in  Edinburgh  was  unrivaljed  for  wit,  beauty 
and  culture — she  also  being  a  poetical  composer.  Not  much 
less  than  two  hundred  years  back,  there  came  into  the  world 
Tobias  Smollett,  one  of  the  really  great  writers  of  fiction — his 
works  palpitating  with  life,  now,  and  as  full  of  human  interest 
as  they  ever  were.  His  original  and  humorous  characters, 
Strap,  Bowling,  Morgan  the  Welshman,  Lismahago,  and  Mat- 
thew Bramble  never  have  been  surpassed  by  Dickens,  Thack- 
eray, Hugo  or  Goethe.  When  will  the  small  brain  of  the  negro 
produce  an  Humphrey  Clinker,  a  Roderick  Random,  a  Pere- 
grine Pickle? 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  more  can  be  learned  of  men 
and  manners  of  the  period  covered  by  Smollett's  Novels,  than 
from  the  histories. 

Crossed  on  to  some  white  man,  and  this  hybrid  crossed  with 
another  Aryan,  we  might  see  another  Dumas  pour  his  wonder- 
fully gorgeous  stories  into  literature;  but  no  pure-blooded 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary.  Etc. 


37 


negro  ever  will.  And  even  Dumas  was  much  of  a  faker  and 
charlatan. 

Two  hundred  years  ago.  the  native  land  of  Andrew  Carnegie 
gloried  in  the  fame  of  her  scholars;  the  devoutness  and  fear- 
lessness of  her  Protestant  clergy;  the  piety,  sobriety,  morality 
and  industry  of  her  people:  the  purity  of  her  judiciary;  the 
growth  of  her  literature;  the  foundation  of  her  manufactures 
and  commerce.  She  had  a  University  famous  throughout 
Europe :  she  had  sent  forth  teachers  and  missionaries  to  plant 
knowledge  and  religion  in  less  advanced  regions;  she  had 
shown  the  world  how  men  might  stand  up  and  beard  Pope  and 
King,  at  a  time  when  other  European  peoples  were  crawling 
on  their  bellies  in  adoration  of  both. 

John  Knox  was  every  whit  as  robust  a  character  as  Luther. 
In  fact,  the  great  German  was  far  more  complaisant  in  his 
demeanor  toward  princes,  than  was  the  rugged  Scotchman. 
Luther  winked  at  the  shameless  license  of  the  potentates  around 
him ;  and  specifically  gave  his  consent  to  bigamy  in  the  case  of 
Philip  L,  Duke  of  Hesse.  So  far  from  falling  into  such  an 
inconsistency,  John  Knox  rebuked  Queen  Mary  with  such 
severity  that  she  Avept  with  mortification.  Xor  were  other 
Scotch  preachers  in  awe  of  the  great.  YTe  find  Andrew  Mell- 
ville  plucking  angrily  at  the  sleeve  of  King  James  L,  and 
calling  him  '"God's  silly  vassal." 

Buckle  did  well,  did  justly,  in  the  "History  of  Civilization" 
to  conclude  his  terrible  arraignment  of  these  preachers,  for 
their  bigotry,  narrowness  and  tyranny,  by  admitting  the  im- 
mense debt  the  race  owes  to  them: 

"At  a  most  hazardous  moment,  they  kept  alive  the  spirit  of 
national  liberty.  What  the  nobles  and  the  crown  had  put  in  peril, 
that  did  the  clergy  save.  By  their  care,  the  dying  spark  was 
kindled  into  a  blaze.  When  the  light  grew  dim,  and  nickered  on 
the  altar,  their  hands  trimmed  the  lamp,  and  fed  the  sacred  flame. 
This  is  their  real  glory,  and  on  this  they  may  well  repose.  They 
were  the  guardians  of  Scotch  freedom,  and  they  stood  to  their  post. 
Where  danger  was,  they  were  foremost.  By  their  sermons,  by  their 
conduct,  both  public  and  private,  by  the  proceedings  of  their  Assem- 
blies, by  their  bold  and  frequent  attacks  upon  persons,  without 
regard  to  their  rank,  nay,  even  by  the  very  insolence  with  which 
they  treated  their  superiors,  they  stirred  up  the  minds  of  men, 
woke  them  from  their  lethargy,  formed  them  to  habits  of  discussion, 
and  excited  that  inquisitive  and  democratic  spirit,  which  is  the 
only  effectual  guarantee  the  people  can  ever  possess  against  the 
tyranny  of  those  who  are  set  over  them.  This  was  the  work  of  the 
Scotch  clergy,  and  all  hail  to  them  who  did  it.  It  was  they  who 
taught  their  countrymen  to  scrutinize,  with  a  fearless  eye,  the 
policy  of  their  rulers.  It  was  they  who  pointed  the  finger  of  scorn 
at  kings  and  nobles,  and  laid  bare  the  hollowness  of  their  preten- 
sions. <They  ridiculed  their  claims,  and  jeered  at  their  mysteries. 
They  tore  the  veil,  and  exposed  the  tricks  of  the  scene  which  lay 
behind.    The  great  ones  of  the  earth,  they  covered  with  contempt; 


38 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


and  those  who  were  above  them,  they  cast  down.  Herein,  they  did 
a  deed  which  should  compensate  for  all  their  offences  ten  times  as 
great.  By  discountenancing  that  pernicious  and  degrading  respect 
which  men  are  too  apt  to  pay  to  those  whom  accident,  and  not 
merit,  has  raised  above  them,  they  facilitated  the  growth  of  a 
proud  and  sturdy  independence,  which  was  sure  to  do  good  service 
at  a  time  of  need.  And  that  time  came  quicker  than  any  one  had 
expected.  Within  a  very  few  years,  James  became  master  of  the 
resources  of  England,  and  attempted,  by  their  aid,  to  subvert  the 
liberties  of  Scotland.  The  shameful  enterprise,  which  he  began, 
was  continued  by  his  cruel  and  superstitious  son.  How  their 
attempts  failed;  how  Charles  I.,  in  the  effort,  shipwrecked  his  for- 
tune, and  provoked  a  rebellion,  which  brought  to  the  scaffold  that 
great  criminal,  who  dared  to  conspire  against  the  people,  and  who, 
-as  the  common  enemy  and  oppressor  of  all,  was  at  length  visited 
with  the  just  punishment  of  his  sins,  is  known  to  every  reader  of 
our  history.  It  is  also  well  known,  that,  in  conducting  the  strug- 
gle, the  English  were  greatly  indebted  to  the  Scotch,  who  had, 
moreover,  the  merit  of  being  the  first  to  lift  their  hand  against  the 
tyrant.  What,  however,  is  less  known,  but  is  undoubtedly  true,  is 
that  both  nations  owe  a  debt  they  can  never  repay  to  those  bold 
men,  who,  during  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  dissemi- 
nated, from  their  pulpits  and  Assemblies,  sentiments  which  the 
people  cherished  in  their  hearts,  and  which,  at  a  fitting  moment, 
thev  reproduced,  to  the  dismay,  and  eventually  to  the  destruction, 
of  those  who  threatened  their  liberties." 

What  nobler  epitaph  could  be  chiselled  on  the  tombs  of  those 
heroic  souls?  They  were  the  Scotch  leaders — mental  and  spir- 
itual standard-bearers  of  two  centuries  ago. 

When  I  recall  the  glowing  pages  of  Walter  Scott,  and  pass 
in  review  his  delineations  of  Scotch  character,  his  pictures  of 
Scotch  life;  when  I  think  of  the  austere  self-control  and  self- 
denial  practised  by  his  countrymen  of  two  hundred  years  ago ; 
when  I  witness  the  awful  grief  of  parents  when  one  of  their 
children  goes  astray ;  when  I  see  the  beauty  of  such  a  character 
as  Effie  Dean,  and  recognize  her  as  a  type;  when  I  witness  the 
devotion  of  the  clan  to  the  Chief,  and  the  pride  of  the  Chief 
in  his  clan ;  when  I  review  the  grand  procession  of  the  mighty 
men,  and  of  the  pure,  lovely,  forceful  women;  when  I  think  of 
them  as  a  race  that  evolved  its  Napier,  its  Burns  and 
Campbell  and  Scott  and  Robertson;  its  Adam  Smith  and 
Buchanan  and  Blair  and  Chalmers;  its  Erskines  and  "Chris- 
topher North"  and  Lockhart;  its  Carlyle  and  Miller  and 
Hume — I  find  myself  marvelling,  past  all  power  of  expression, 
that  any  Scotchman  could  be  ass  enough  to  say  what  Carnegie 
said. 

To  the  uttermost  limits  of  the  habitable  universe,  the  Scotch- 
man has  carried  his  racial  characteristics.  What  are  they? 
Perseverance,  shrewdness,  fortitude,  sobriety,  energy,  fore- 
thought, piety,  high  standards  of  morality,  and  a  profound 
regard  for  womanly  virtue.    He  not  only  evolved  his  own 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary.  Etc. 


39 


civilization  in  his  native  land,  but  has  been  a  pioneer  civilizer 
in  every  country  to  which  he  has  migrated.  Commerce  owes 
him  much:  manufactures  are  his  debtor;  science  and  art 
acknowledge  his  masterly  conceptions  and  achievements;  re- 
ligion turns  to  him  as  a  tower  of  strength;  and  literature, 
without  him,  would  be  moonless  night  bereft  of  a  girdle  of 
stars.  In  geology,  in  philosophy,  in  political  economy,  in 
astronomy,  in  applied  science,  in  jurisprudence,  in  oratory,  in 
history,  poetry,  music  and  song,  the  Celt  is  the  peer  of  any 
man  whosoever. 

Blot  out  what  he  has  contributed  to  the  world's  thought,  to 
its  uplift,  to  its  betterment,  to  its  strength  and  sweetness  and 
glory,  and  the  cloth  of  gold  would  lose  the  strands  which 
make  its  completeness. 

But  the  negro?  Poor,  inferior  copyist  of  the  master-race, 
he  is  as  incapable  of  maintaining  a  civilization  as  he  is  of 
originating  one.  For  himself,  he  can  do  nothing.  Civilize  him 
in  America  and  send  him  to  Liberia,  and  what  happens  ?  He 
sinks,  lapsing  toward  the  barbarous  state;  and  begins  to  im- 
plore the  whites  to  come  to  his  relief.  Civilize  him  in  San 
Domingo,  and  what  is  the  result?  As  soon  as  the  French  go 
away,  and  the  negro  becomes  his  own  boss,  down  he  goes.  The 
varnish  of  Latin  culture  wears  off,  and  there's  your  negro. 
And  such  is  the  chaotic  bestiality  into  which  he  plunges,  that 
the  whites  must  needs  rush  to  the  rescue. 

In  this  country,  we  have  seen  the  negro  boys  come  home 
from  the  colleges — "educated  gentlemen."  according  to  the 
Carnegies,  Ogdens,  and  Rockefellers — and.  in  a  few  years  all 
the  varnish  is  gone.  The  great  mass  of  the  race  is  in  a 
lower  condition  than  during  slavery.  They  are  more  immoral, 
more  besotted,  more  lazy,  more  diseased.  In  Africa,  where 
they  live  next  to  nature,  wear  no  clothes  to  speak  of.  drink  no 
vile  liquor,  use  no  cocaine,  and  have  no  syphilis,  the  traveller 
finds  the  negro  physically  perfect — beautiful  as  the  leopard 
and  the  tiger  are.  But  you  seldom  see.  in  one  of  our  towns 
and  cities,  a  negro  buck  or  young  woman  who  has  no  bodily 
defect. 

Go  to  the  drug-stores  of  the  larger  towns  and  the  cities,  and 
inquire  about  the  users  of  cocaine.  You  will  find  that  the 
black  men,  especially  the  preachers,  buy  enormous  quantities 
of  it.  This  drug  excites  the  animalism  of  men.  Think  of 
this,  in  connection  Avith  the  prevalence  of  veneral  disease 
among  the  post-bellum  negroes,  and  you  will  realize  why  their 
race  is  tending  downward. 

Lacking  in  the  characteristics  that  make  for-  civilization,  the 
negro  can  not  be  educated  into  white  black-men.  School  books 
can  not  supply  traits,  qualities,  racial  superiority.    God  must 


40 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


give  these — -He  alone.  The  poor  negro  never  has  had  them, 
has  not  got  them,  never  will  have  them.  Like  the  Red  Men, 
Eskimo,  and  the  Australian,  the  negro  must  bow  to  the  decree 
of  fate,  and  take  his  place  as  a  lower  being.  The  Fatherhood  of 
God  no  more  implies  that  we  must  accept  him  as  an  equal  than 
it  means  for  us  to  sink  to  the  plane  of  Ponca  or  Digger  Indians. 
As  to  the  "Equality  and  Brotherhood  of  Man" — to  see  what 
that  fatal  doctrine  leads  to,  we  have  only  to  consider  the 
mongrelism  which  curses  Mexico,  Cuba,  Central  and  South 
America,  as  well  as  Portugal  and  a  portion  of  Spain. 

Andrew  Carnegie,  talking  to  negroes,  told  them  that  "the 
lowest  negro  of  the  South"  was  superior  to  his  own  ancestors 
of  two  hundred  years  ago. 

What  sort  of  beings  are  "the  lowest  negroes"  of  the  South? 
How  do  they  live,  and  what  do  they  do? 

They  will  ravish  girls  who  have  hardly  passed  from  baby- 
hood: they  will  go  in  squads,  surprise  some  white  man,  and 
take  turns  lying  with  his  wife,  in  his  presence :  they  will  grab 
a  white  girl  at  her  door,  gag  her,  drag  her  away  to  the  negro 
section,  violate  her  repeatedly  all  night  long,  then  brutally  kill 
her,  and  throw  her  lacerated  body  into  the  street.  They  will 
rape  an  old  woman  who  is  so  bent  and  enfeebled  by  age  that 
she  can  hardly  walk  with  the  aid  of  a  stick.  The  very  animals 
in  the  stables,  are  not  safe  from  their  bestiality.  Two  such 
cases  came  to  light,  and  to  Court,  in  my  home  county;  and 
how  many  more  there  are,  none  but  God  can  know ! 

Among  themselves,  the  black  men  and  women  of  the  lower 
class  have  no  morality  at  all,  no  sense  of  decency,  none  of 
shame.  They  simply  have  no  comprehension  of  virtue,  hon- 
esty, truth,  gratitude  and  principle.  Not  to  get  caught,  is  the 
sole  motive  for  secrecy  in  wrong-doing.  To  lie,  to  steal,  to 
break  contracts,  to  forget  favors,  to  copulate — are  not  criminal 
acts,  in  their  eyes.  The  returned  convict  gets  an  ovation;  the 
murderer,  about  to  be  hung  for  an  atrocious  assassination,  is  a 
heroic  figure;  the  negro  who  has  left  some  white  girl  to  die  of 
her  wounds,  or  of  inconsolable  grief,  and  made  good  his  escape, 
is  envied  and  congratulated. 

Were  the  Scotch  ever  such  beasts?  Read  that  fearlessly 
frank  book,  "The  American  Negro,"  whose  author,  Hon.  Wil- 
liam Hannibal  Thomas,  has  negro  blood  in  his  veins ;  and  who 
spent  the  best  years  of  his  life  working  for  the  uplift  of  the 
Southern  negroes.  He  confesses  the  whole  truth  about  these 
inferior,  most  unfortunate,  and  irreclaimable  people.  From 
the  school-children  who  practise  indescribable  obscenities,  pub- 
licly, on  the  playgrounds,  to  the  grown-ups,  among  whom 
sexual  promiscuity  respects  neither  age  nor  relationship,  we 
see  the  irrepressible  outbreak  of  innate,  uncontrollable  and 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  41 


bestial  lusts.  The  negro  preachers  are  regular  Sultans,  with 
whole  female  congregations  for  wives  and  concubines.  Go  to 
th  city  drug-stores  and  physicians — and  learn  something  about 
these  colored  clergymen  and  their  flocks. 

Compare  the  Scotch,  of  any  era,  no  matter  how  ancient,  to 
these  unmoral  swine — these  poor  creatures  who  have  no  con- 
ception of  chastity,  none  of  honor,  none  of  gratitude,  none  of 
principle,  almost  none  of  incest,  and  none  whatever  of  that 
spiritual  consecration  and  heroism  which  made  the  Scotch 
preacher  and  congregation,  of  nearly  four  hundred  years  ago, 
the  dauntless  preserver  of  the  true  faith,  of  individual  liberty, 
and  of  popular  rights  ?    Bah  ! 

Read  this  terrible  but  truthful  summing  up,  in  "The  Amer- 
ican Negro."  Remember  that  the  author  calls  the  negroes  umy 
people,"  and  that  his  book  is  full  of  paternal,  sympathetic 
advice  to  them : 

"Soberly  speaking,  negro  nature  is  so  craven  and  sensuous  in 
every  fibre  of  its  being  that  a  negro  manhood  with  decent  respect 
for  chaste  womanhood  does  not  exist. 

"These  conclusions  are  reached  because  the  facts  show  that  the 
negro  is  slowly  and  steadily  undergoing  moral  deterioration;  not, 
however,  because  he  can  not  keep  pace  with  the  advancing  strides 
of  an  environing  superior  civilization,  but  because  he  has  no  ethical 
integrity,  no  inbred  determination  for  right-doing,  and  consequently 
no  clearly  defined  and  steadfast  aversion  to  wrong-doing.  The 
American  negro  never  had  a  conscientious-  and  intelligent  apprecia- 
tion of  the  law  of  obedience,  and  for  that  reason  either  does  not 
clearly  apprehend,  or  else  wantonly  ignores,  essential  facts.  In  any 
critical  analysis  of  this  subject,  we  shall  easily  discover  that  the 
groundwork  of  negro  degeneration  rests  on  mental  frivolity  and 
physical  pleasure,  and  that,  owing  to  these  characteristic  traits,  his 
confusion  of  mind  is  such  that  he  fails  to  realize  that  between  good 
and  evil  conduct  there  is  a  great  gulf.  He  has  yet  to  discern  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  moral  inexorableness,  with  every  sin 
shadowed  by  its  own  penalty.  The  simple  truth  is  that  there  is 
going  on  side  by  side  in  the  negro  people,  a  minimum  progress  with 
a  maximum  regress;  or,  in  other  words,  an  awakening  of  a  minority 
of  them,  with  an  increasing  degradation  of  the  majority." 

That  is  an  awful  thing  to  say,  but  it  is  the  truth. 

Annihilate  what  the  Scotch  have  done  for  the  human  species, 
and  you  will  have  cast  a  shade  over  the  brightness  of  the 
intellectual  heavens:  but  what  Avould  be  lost  if  the  negro's 
share  in  civilization  were  destroyed?  Nothing  whatsoever. 
He  has  written  books:  there  isn't  in  a  single  one  of  them  the 
breath  of  life.  He  has  delivered  orations:  not  one  of  them 
has  risen  to  the  heights  of  the  eloquence  of  the  Red  Man — - 
some  of  whose  "talks"  were  gems.  He  has  been  a  student :  and 
tio  thought  of  his  has  added  a  jewel  to  the  treasury  of  Letters. 


42 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


If  everything  that  he  has  ever  said  or  published  were  sunk  to 
the  bottom  of  the  sea,  mankind  would  not  miss  it. 

As  a  race,  the  negro  has  never  even  set  a  great  example, 
never  made  a  heroic  struggle  for  independence.  For  countless 
ages,  they  have  sold  each  other  into  foreign  and  domestic 
servitude,  have  eaten  each  other,  have  devoured  the  bodies  of 
the  dead,  have  had  no  sense  of  sexual  purity,  have  had  no 
religion,  no  conception  of  God,  of  Justice  and  Mercy;  have 
had  no  prayer,  excepting  the  piteous  plea  that  their  devils 
would  forget  them.  Sons  and  daughters,  husbands  and  wives, 
have  immemorialy  wallowed  in  orgies  of  sensualism,  without 
feeling  of  shame — even  as  they  so  often  do  in  this  country. 
Their  only  melody  was  a  heart-broken  wail  of  superstitious 
fear:  they  offered  up  human  sacrifice:  they  grovelled  before 
Witch  Doctors,  who  "smelt  out"  the  witches  that  these  demons, 
or  the  fiendish  chiefs,  wished  to  get  rid  of :  they  fed  on  carrion,, 
as  well  as  human  flesh. 

The  only  pure-blooded  negroes  who  ever  were  classed  as 
great,  were  Toussaint  and  Chaka:  neither  of  them  equalled, 
in  statesmanly  qualities,  Pontiac  or  Tecumseh.  And  both 
Toussaint  and  Chaka  were  utterly  devoid  of  the  humane  traits 
of  the  two  great  Indians.  Red  Men  evolved  an  alphabet  and  a 
written  language:  the  negroes  did  not  even  reach  the  heights 
of  picture  writing.  The  Indians  produced  statesmen  who 
established  and  maintained  powerful  conxederacies :  the  negroes 
never  did.  The  Red  Men  maintained  the  right  of  the  indi- 
vidual against  the  Chief,  and  could  only  be  sentenced  to  death 
after  a  trial:  the  negroes  had  no  conception  of  individual 
rights,  and  the  Chief  had  his  subjects  killed  at  his  own  pleas- 
ure. The  Indians  evolved  a  rude  form  of  representative  gov- 
ernment: the  negroes  never  did.  The  entire  negro  portion  of 
Africa  may  be  ransacked  in  vain  to  discover  any  manufacture 
comparable  to  the  Navajo  blanket,  the  bead- work  and  the  pot- 
tery of  the  higher  tribes.  Always  ready  for  war,  the  negro 
had  no  weapon  that  could  equal  the  Indian's  bow  and  arrow. 
There  are  pathetic  proofs  of  the  Red  Man's  capacity  for 
gratitude:  the  negro  is  totally  without  it. 

To  the  negro,  his  wife  was  his  slave,  necessary  to  the  grati- 
fication of  his  sexual  passions :  the  Indian  warrior  left  all  the 
drudgery  to  his  squaw ;  but  there  is  evidence  that  sentimental 
love  very  often  led  to  his  choice  of  mate.  (I  know  the  Semi- 
noles  to  be  affectionate  husbands  and  indulgent  parents.  )  The 
Indian  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  his  idea  of 
Heaven  was  as  elevated  as  that  of  the  Mohammedan:  the 
negro  either  had  no  thought  of  such  matters,  or  cherished  the 
belief  that  his  ancestor  was  still  living,  somewhere,  in  the  same 
shape  as  before  death.    If  he  had  been  a  man  of  some  power 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


and  property,  cows,  slaves,  etc..  were  slaughtered,  now  and 
then,  in  order  that  the  said  ancestors  might  not  get  out  of 
food  and  servants. 

Yet  with  all  this  superiority  to  the  negro,  the  Red  Man  never 
did  develop  a  civilization — how  absurd,  then,  the  faith  of 
those  who  believe  that  the  negro  can  do  it ! 

We  can  teach  him.  govern  him.  Christianize  him.  veneer  him 
with  an  outward  polish  of  culture :  and  he  will  use  big  words, 
wear  store-clothes,  ride  in  an  auto,  hold  an  office,  crowd  himself 
into  the  company  of  white  folks,  and  act  so  much  like  a  "col- 
ored gentleman"  that  the  Negro-philes  invite  him  to  dinner. 
But  he's  a  negro,  just  the  same.  In  spite  of  all  that  he  can 
do.  the  savage  will  crop  out. 

The  negro  is  as  God  made  him:  with  all  your  money  and 
your  books  and  your  political  patronage,  you  cannot  create 
racial  characteristics.    It  takes  the  Almighty  to  do  that. 

The  Christian  Work  and  Evangelist.  January  8,  1010.  has 
an  article  glorifying  the  negro,  and  repeating  the  old.  old 
absurdity,  that  during  their  fifty  years  of  freedom,  the  blacks 
have  made  greater  progress  than  any  people  have  ever  made 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  A  stupider  falsehood,  one  could 
not  write.  The  white  race,  through  ages  of  agony  and  cease- 
less effort,  originated  our  Civilization.  During  Slavery,  we 
taught  the  African  savage  how  to  imitate  our  ways,  speak  our 
language  and  ape  our  customs.  Often  we  had  to  use  the  lash 
to  compel  him  to  do  it — just  as  the  rod  is  used  on  the  dis- 
obedient child,  and  just  as  trainers,  by  judicious  severity,  tame 
wild  animals. 

After  the  slave  was  made  a  free  man.  our  example  and  co- 
ercion continued  to  act  upon  him.  Our  laws,  our  officials,  our 
advice,  our  domination  united  to  put  irresistible  pressure  upon 
the  black  man.  Circumstances  simply  forced  him  to  keep  step, 
as  best  he  could,  with  the  progress  of  the  whites.  But  his 
travelling  has  been  like  unto  that  of  the  man  who  is  too  feeble 
to  stand  alone,  and  who  has  to  be  supported  as  he  walks  by  a 
strong  man  on  each  side. 

His  achievement,  compared  to  ours,  is  like  that  of  the  school- 
boy who  learns  by  heart  Patrick  Henry's  immortal  speech,  and 
spouts  it  at  the  "Commencement."  Or  like  that  of  the  amateurs 
who  go  to  the  art  galleries,  and  copy  the  original  creations  of 
Raphael.  Michael  Angelo.  Rubens.  Titian.  Holbein.  Turner. 
Millais  and  David. 

"Between  myself  and  Raphael."  said  a  conceited  copyist, 
"there  is  only  a  hair's-breadth  of  difference." 

But.  as  Yillari  justly  comments,  "in  that  invisible  hair's- 
breadth.  there  stretched  all  the  infinite  gulf  that  divides  the 
genius  of  an  artist  from  the  pedantry  of  a  copyist." 


44  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


The  fair  test  of  the  negro's  capacity  is,  what  he  does,  when 
left  to  depend  upon  himself. 

We  know  what  the  Celts,  Saxons,  Jutes,  Angles,  Danes  and 
other  white  tribes  did,  when  left  to  work  out  their  own  destiny. 
We  see  it  in  the  state  of  things  in  which  we  live.  We  call  it, 
Christian  Civilization. 

Now,  what  did  the  negro  ever  do  when  left  to  his  own  re- 
resources?  Nothing.  For  thousands  of  years,  the  blacks  of 
Africa  had  just  as  good  an  opportunity  to  evolve  a  civilization 
as  the  Indo-Germanic  people  had :  but  the  savage  African  tribe 
of  five  thousand  years  is  faithfully  represented  by  the  savage 
man-eating  tribe  of  today. 

In  Liberia,  were  located  the  very  best  American  negroes  who 
could  be  induced  to  return  to  their  native  country.  A  modern 
state  was  set  up,  and  these  educated  emigrants  from  the 
United  States  were  left  in  control  of  it. 

With  what  result?  A  failure  so  complete,  so  hopeless,  that 
it  would  be  ludicrous,  were  it  not  so  tragic. 


Robert  Toombs :  A  Life  Sketch ;  Some 
Anecdotes,  and  His  Last  Public 
Speech 

One  sunny  morning,  in  the  early  summer  of  1871,  a  scrap  of 
a  country  boy  who  had  walked  into  the  town  of  Thomson  to 
get  the  mail,  saw  a  tall,  portly  stranger  come  stepping  up 
Main  street  with  the  majesty  of  a  King.  There  was  a  regal 
air.  a  bearing  indicatiye  of  self-conscious  power,  that  I  have 
never  seen  worn  by  any  other  man,  naturally,  as  this  man 
wore  it. 

Old  Mr.  Cartledge  was  toddling  down  toward  the  postoffice 
— his  daily  habit — and  as  the  distinguished-looking  stranger 
met  him,  I  heard  the  quick,  but  not  cordial,  salutation. 

"Good  morning,  Mr.  Catt-ledge." 

Xow  the  little  boy  dared  not  address  the  formidable  stranger; 
his  very  carriage  forbade  impertinence  and  familiarity;  but 
Judge  Cartledge  was  a  friend  of  the  family  who  rested  his 
tired  feet  every  day  on  our  piazza,  in  his  going  and  coming  to 
and  from  the  village,  and  therefore  I  did  not  hesitate  to  draw 
close  to  him  and  ask. 

-Who  was  that.  Mr.  Cartledge?" 

And  somehow  or  other  I  felt  it  in  my  bones  that  there 
could  be  but  one  answer,  and  that  was, 
"General  Toombs." 

The  great  lawyer  had  managed  a  case  against  Mr.  Cartledge, 
and  the  two  were  not  friendly. — hence  the  curtness  of  the 
greetings  exchanged. 

Doubtless  I  had  seen  pictures  of  Toombs  in  the  books,  though 
I  do  not  remember  to  have  done  so.  My  real  belief  is  that  he 
had  been  described  to  me  so  often,  had  taken  such  a  hold  of 
my  boyish  fancy,  and  had  become  so  much  of  a  reality  in  my 
own  mind  that  I  would  have  known  him  anywhere,  picture 
or  no  picture. 

For  there  never  was  another  man  like  Toombs.  Ben  Hill 
was  great.  Alex  Stephens  was  great,  but  neither  of  them  ap- 
proached Bob  Toombs  in  the  perfect  symmetry  and  majesty  of 
physical  and  intellectual  manhood. 

Xeither  Hill  nor  Stephens  impressed  you,  unless  they  were 
aroused  and  in  action :  Toombs  impressed  you  always ;  and,  in 
private  conversation,  the  astonishing  powers  of  his  mind  ex- 


46  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


acted  the  same  mastery  of  his  surroundings,  that  they  gave 
him  in  the  court  room,  on  the  hustings,  at  the  council  board, 
and  in  the  Senate. 

Stephens  in  repose  looked  like  a  sickly  boy,  or  like  a  withered 
spinister,  dressed  up  by  mistake  in  breeches;  Hill  was  apt  to 
scrouge  down  in  his  seat,  even  in  the  Senate,  like  a  man  on 
his  shoulder-blades ;  but  Toombs,  without  the  hint  of  a  strut, 
never  let  himself  down;  in  action  he  was  the  lion  aroused: 
when  at  ease,  he  was  the  lion  at  rest.  I  think  I  never  saw  the 
inborn,  imperial  superiority  of  Toombs  make  itself  so  con- 
spicuously self-evident  as  it  did  in  his  lordly  bearing  at  the 
breakfast  table.  It  was  impossible  to  think  of  him  as  slouch- 
ing, trifling,  dawdling,  or  merely  acting.  Always,  everywhere, 
he  was  Toombs,— high-headed,  massive,  forceful,  or  mantled 
in  Websterian  silence  and  dignity. 

He  excelled  in  the  sagacity  which  pierces  a  problem  at  a 
glance;  in  the  power  of  condensation,  which  crushes  an  op- 
ponent with  one  sentence.  He  was  the  wittiest  of  men,  because 
of  the  sheer  native  brilliance  of  mind  which  surpassed  all 
ordinary  standards  in  swift  perception  and  happy  expression. 
He  spoke  powerfully,  because  he  felt  powerfully ;  and  the  best 
speeches  he  ever  made  were  due  to  sudden  turbulenc  of  violent 
passions,  aroused  by  the  circumstances  surrounding  him. 

Had  Toombs  subjected  his  powers  to  early  discipline,  there 
is  no  telling  how  far  he  might  have  gone.  Senator  Beck,  like 
Mr.  Stephens,  believed  that,  in  natural  gifts,  Robert  Toombs 
was  the  greatest  American  of  his  day. 

Rev.  Dr.  John  M.  White,  told  me  that  while  Ben  Hill  was 
serving  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  he  remarked  to  him,  (Dr.  White), 
in  the  course  of  a  conversation,  "If  Toombs  were  by  my  side 
here  in  Congress,  I  would  give  more  for  his  help  than  I  would 
for  that  of  everybody  else  in  the  State  of  Georgia.  He  is  a 
walking  Encyclopedia,  and  he  could  tell  me  all  those  things 
that  I  do  not  know  and  which  I  need  to  know,  regarding 
political  history  and  these  great  questions  concerning  the 
national  welfare." 

It  is  said  that  the  ancestors  of  Robert  Toombs  were  royalists 
in  England,  and  that  it  was  on  their  estate  at  Boscobel  that 
the  young  prince,  afterwards  known  in  history  as  Charles  II., 
took  refuge  in  the  oak  tree,  while  the  Cromwellian  troopers 
rode  beneath,  looking  for  him.  Shortly  after  the  battle  of 
Worcester,  the  Toombs  family  left  England  and  settled  in 
Virginia.  During  the  Revolutionary  War,  a  regiment  of 
troops  was  sent  from  Virginia  to  Georgia,  and  the  father  of 
Robert  Toombs  was  a  major  in  this  regiment.  At  the  close 
of  the  war,  Major  Toombs  settled  in  Wilkes  County  on  the 
land  which  he  had  drawn  from  the  State  for  his  services  as  a 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


47 


soldier.  He  died  in  1815.  leaving  a  will  which  divided  a  large 
estate  in  lands  and  slaves  among  his  children,  two  sons  and 
four  daughters. 

Robert  Toombs  was  born  in  Wilkes  County.  July  2,  1810. 
He  was  slender,  as  a  boy.  and  active  and  full  of  mischief,  but 
was  not  considered  particularly  bright.  He  excelled  in  boyish 
games,  was  fond  of  horse-back  riding,  and  enjoyed  the  best  of 
health.  Upon  one  occasion  he  rode  from  his  home  in  Wilkes 
to  Milledgeville.  a  distance  of  sixty-five  miles,  and  danced  at 
a  ball  that  night. 


RESIDENCE  OP  GENERAL  TOOMBS,  WASHINGTON,  GA. 


He  attended  the  old  field  schools  of  the  neighborhood  in 
which  he  lived:  was  then  given  a  course  of  study  by  a  private 
tutor ;  and  was  then  sent  to  the  State  University  of  Georgia. 

Toombs  was  no  student,  at  college.  He  read  a  great  deal, 
but  did  not  apply  himself  to  his  textbooks.  Violating  the  rules 
as  to  playing  cards  at  night  and  fearing  the  disgrace  of  an 
expulsion,  he  prevailed  upon  his  guardian  to  secure  for  him 
an  honorable  discharge,  and  thus  left  his  alma  mater.  He  was 
next  entered  at  Union  College.  Schenectady,  X.  Y.,  where  he 
finished  his  classical  course  and  received  his  degree.  Then  he 
went  to  the  University  of  Virginia,  where  he  studied  law  cne 
year. 


48  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


In  March,  1830,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  Elbert  County, 
his  license  being  signed  by  the  celebrated  Wm.  H.  Crawford. 
At  that  time,  this  distinguished  Georgian  was  a  mere  wreck  of 
his  former  self.  A  paralytic  stroke  had  shattered  mind  and 
body,  and  his  temper  had  been  soured  by  disappointment  and 
disease.  As  presiding  Judge,  he  was  sometimes  very  harsh  to 
lawyers  practicing  in  his  court.  Upon  one  occasion  he  and 
young  Toombs  clashed,  and  Toombs  made  such  a  forceful  pro- 
test against  the  treatment  which  he  was  receiving  from  the 
bench  that  even  Crawford  was  impressed  and  convinced. 

Almost  from  the  beginning  Eobert  Toombs  had  all  the  law 
business  that  he  cared  to  manage.  He  became  an  intense 
student.  Not  only  did  he  give  the  most  scrupulous  care  to  the 
preparation  of  his  cases,  but  he  mastered  law  as  a  science.^ 
Between  himself  and  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  as  lawyers,  there  was 
no  comparison.  Between  himself  and  H.  V.  Johnson,  as  law- 
yers, there  was  no  comparison.  He  was  no  greater  advocate 
or  court-house  lawyer  than  Benj.  H.  Hill,  but  he  far  surpassed 
Hill  as  a  master  of  the  science  of  jurisprudence. 

In  the  counties  of  Wilkes,  Oglethorpe,  Elbert,  Columbia, 
Warren  and  Taliaferro,  Toombs  continued  to  practice  for 
many  years,  doing  the  cream  of  the  business  and  earning  a 
princely  income.  Neither  Ben  Hill  nor  Alex.  Stephens  knew 
what  to  do  with  money  after  they  made  it.  Neither  of  them 
had  any  talent  for  investment  or  for  business.  Toombs  on 
the  other  hand,  was  an  all-round  man  of  affairs.  It  is  doubtful 
if  he  ever  made  an  unfortunate  investment  until  the  clouding 
.of  his  mind,  during  his  last  years,  caused  him  to  become  the 
victim  of  sharpers,  in  Atlanta. 

The  fact  that  young  Toombs,  while  a  student  at  the  Univer- 
sity- of  Virginia,  rode  all  the  way  to  Charlotte  to  hear  John 
Eandolph  make  one  of  his  last  political  speeches,  indicates  a 
passion  which  he  had  for  politics  and  public  life. 

He  was  hardly  well  on  his  feet  as  a  lawyer  before  he  ran 
for  the  Legislature,  being  elected  successively  in  1839,  1840, 
1842  and  1843.  As  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  and 
as  Chairman  of  the  Banking  Committee,  he  rendered  ex- 
tremely important  services.  The  State  was  flooded  with  the 
notes  of  State  banks  which  were  circulating  at  about  40  cents 
on  the  dollar.  Toombs  compelled  the  banks  to  provide  a  fund 
to  redeem  their  bills,  and  thus  they  were  at  once  brought  to 
par.  In  1840  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Internal 
Improvements,  he  gave  his  powerful  aid  towards  the  comple- 
tion of  the  Western  and  Atlantic  railroad.  A  notable  attempt 
of  his,  which  unfortunately  failed,  was  a  bill  to  abonsn  surety- 
ship in  Georgia.  If  the  world  had  the  statistics  showing  the 
numbers  of  men,  women,  and  children  who  are  reduced  to 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


49 


poverty  and  ruin  by  the  weakness  of  individuals  who  become 
securities  for  others,  the  good  common  sense  of  Toombs  would 
be  apparent  to  everybody. 

In  1844  Toombs  was  elected  to  Congress  as  a  Whig.  In 
October  of  that  year  he  had  a  memorable  debate  with  George 
McDuffie  in  the  city  of  Augusta.  The  political  alliances  of 
Toombs  compelled  him  to  defnd  the  Henry  Clay  tariff.  Mc- 
Duffie.  of  course,  assailed  it.  In  the  course  of  his  speech.  Mr. 
McDuffie  was  illustrating  the  effect  of  the  tariff  on  various 
commodities  used  by  the  Southern  people.  One  of  these  was 
broad-cloth.  Mr.  McDuffie  himself  wore  broadcloth,  and  his 
carriage  driver  was  also  garbed  in  a  livery  of  that  material, 
McDuffie  being  very  proud  of  his  fine  horses  and  the  noble 
appearance  of  his  equipages.  It  seems  incredible  that  Toombs 
could  have  turned  the  tide  against  McDuffie  in  a  debate  on  a 
question  of  great  national  importance,  by  making  a  personal 
allusion,  but  according  to  the  accounts  given  me  by  those  who 
had  the  story  from  those  present  on  that  occasion.  Toombs 
completely  unhorsed  McDuffie  by  crying  out : 

"The  gentleman  speaks  of  broad-cloth  and  the  effect  of  the 
tariff  upon  the  prices  of  broad-cloth.  Why.  fellow-citizens, 
I  do  not  see  anybody  here  that  is  wearing  broad-cloth  except 
the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  and  his  nigger  carriage 
driver !" 

Toombs  was  himself  afterwards  somewhat  ashamed  of  this 
thrust  of  the  demagogue,  and  he  admitted,  in  private  conversa- 
tion, that  he  had  not  been  able  to  touch  McDuffie's  argument. 
Xevertheless.  he  was  elected  to  Congress,  taking  his  seat  in 
December.  1845.  In  January.  1S-L6.  he  spoke  on  the  Oregon 
question,  making  his  debut. — and  "a  grand  debut  it  was."  says 
his  life-long  friend  and  then  colleague  in  Congress.  Mr.  Ste- 
phens. In  July.  1S46.  Mr.  Toombs  made  an  elaborate  speech 
against  the  tariff  bill  of  1846.  In  this  speech  he  was  most 
assuredly  wrong. 

In  each  succeeding  session  of  Congress.  Mr.  Toombs  was 
one  of  the  leading  figures,  until  his  election  to  the  Senate. 
In  1850,  he  and  Mr.  Stephens  threw  themselves  against  the 
Disunion  movement,  giving  all  of  their  influence  to  what  was 
known  as  the  Compromise  of  1S50.  As  Thos.  H.  Benton  said, 
"Georgia  was  at  the  head  of  the  States  which  had  the  merit 
of  stopping  the  Disunion  movement."  In  November.  1851, 
Toombs  was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate.  In  1854,  he 
ceased  to  be  a  Whig.  He  acted  with  the  Democratic  Party 
from  thence  forward  until  1860,  after  which  year  it  is  doubtful 
if  he  considered  himself  a  member  of  any  political  party. 

In  his  "Twenty  Years  of  Congress*'  Mr.  Blaine  states  that 
Robert  Toombs  was  the  only  one  of  the  Southern  statesmen 


50 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


who  made  a  plain,  definite,  candid  statement  of  those  condi- 
tions which  would  satisfy  the  Southern  States  and  cause  them 
to  remain  in  the  Union.  In  brief,  these  conditions  were  that 
the  Southern  people  should  have  the  same  rights  in  the  terri- 
tories as  were  possessed  by  citizens  of  other  portions  of  the 
Union;  that  property  in  slaves  should  be  entitled  to  the  same 
protection  from  the  Government  as  any  other  property;  that 
persons  committing  crimes  against  slave  property  in  one  State 
and  fleeing  to  another  should  be  given  up  to  be  punished ;  that 
fugitive  slaves  should  be  surrendered;  that  Congress  should 
pass  laws  for  the  punishment  of  all  people  who  should  aid 
and  abet  invasion  and  insurrection  in  any  other  State. 

In  a  speech  of  which  Mr.  Stephens  used  to  say  "If  ever  the 
pillars  of  that  temple  shook,  it  was  while  Toombs  was  making 
that  speech,"  this  Tribune  of  the  Southern  people  declared : 

"You  will  regard  Confederate  obligations;  you  will  not 
regard  constitutional  obligations;  you  will  not  regard  your 
oaths.  What,  then,  am  I  to  do?  Am  I  a  freeman?  Is  my 
State  a  free  State?  We  are  freemen;  we  have  rights;  I  have 
stated  them.  We  have  wrongs ;  I  have  recounted  them.  I  have 
demonstrated  that  the  party  now  coming  into  power  has  de- 
clared us  outlaws,  and  is  determined  to  exclude  thousands  of 
millions  of  our  property  from  the  common  territory;  that  it 
has  declared  us  under  the  ban  of  the  United  States  everywhere. 
They  have  refused  to  protect  us  from  invasion  and  insurrection 
by  the  Federal  power,  and  the  Constitution  denies  to  us,  in 
the  Union,  the  right  to  raise  fleets  and  armies  for  our  own' 
defense.  All  these  charges  I  have  proven  by  the  record;  and 
I  put  them  before  the  civilized  world  and  demand  the  judg- 
ment of  today,  of  tomorrow,  of  distant  ages,  and  of  Heaven 
itself  upon  the  justice  of  these  causes.  I  am  content,  whatever 
it  be,  to  peril  all  in  so  holy  a  cause.  We  have  appealed,  time 
and  again,  for  these  constitutional  rights.  You  have  refused 
them.  We  appeal  again.  Restore  to  us  those  rights  as  we  had 
them;  as  your  Court  adjudges  them  to  be;  just  as  our  people 
have  said  they  are.  Redress  these  flagrant  wrongs — seen  of  all 
men — an(i  it  Will  restore  fraternity,  and  unity,  and  peace  to  us 
all.  Refuse  them,  and  what  then  ?  We  shall  then  ask  you,  'Let 
us  depart  in  peace.'  Refuse  that,  and  you  present  us  war.  We 
accept  it,  and,  inscribing  upon  our  banners  the  glorious  words, 
'Liberty  and  Equality,'  we  will  trust  to  the  blood  of  the  brave 
and  the  god  of  battles  for  security  and  tranquility." 

Historians  will  have  no  difficulty  in  reaching,  finally,  the 
facts  concerning  that  deplorable  rupture  between  the  North 
and  the  South.  The  speeches  of  such  men  as  Abraham  Lincoln 
were  full  of  conciliation  and  brotherly  love,  but  Mr.  Lincoln 
himself  stood  at  the  head  of  those  who  refused  to  make  any 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary.  Etc. 


51 


concession  to  the  South  in  the  interest  of  peace.  After  all  the 
efforts  at  compromise  had  failed.  Mr.  Toombs  sent  his  cele- 
brated telegram  to  the  people  of  Georgia,  and  his  powerful 
influence  was  thrown  in  favor  of  the  ordinance  of  secession. 

The  seceding  States  having  set  up  a  government  of  their 
own,  it  is  perfectly  clear  now  that  Toombs  should  have  been 
at  the  head  of  it.  He  was  the  embodiment  of  Southern  senti- 
ment at  that  time.  He  was  broad  and  he  was  practical.  In 
his  composition,  there  was  none  of  the  bigot  or  the  martinet. 
Xo  man  in  the  South  so  fully  realized  that  the  success  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy  was  a  business  proposition.  Had  he 
been  made  President  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  there  is  no 
doubt  whatever  that  our  cotton  would  have  been  stored  in 
Europe  and  used  as  a  basis  of  credit.  Bonds  and  currency 
would  have  been  based  upon  this  cotton,  which,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  would  have  been  advancing  in  price  all  the  time. 
With  these  resources,  wisely  used  communications  between 
the  Southern  States  and  Europe  would  have  been  kept  open 
and  the  blockade  which  ruined  us  could  never  have  been  estab- 
lished in  the  face  of  Southern  energy,  aided  by  the  self-interest 
of  Europe.  With  Toombs  as  President,  there  might  have  been 
no  war  at  all.  He  warned  the  Davis  Cabinet  that  if  they  fired 
on  Sumpter  they  would  start  the  bloodiest  war  in  history. 
The  Southern  Confederacy  might  have  become  a  happy,  pros- 
perous republic,  just  as  Mexico  now  is,  and  just  as  Canada  is 
for  all  practical  purposes.  Even  if  there  had  been  a  war, 
Toombs  was  the  man  to  have  finished  it  up.  one  way  or  the 
other,  inside  of  a  year. 

Appointed  Secretary  of  State  by  President  Davis,  Mr. 
Toombs  had  no  real  opportunities.  He  laughingly  said  that 
he  carried  all  the  papers  of  the  Confederate  State  Department 
in  his  hat.  and  when  the  Government  began  to  use  unlimited 
amounts  of  paper  currency,  with  no  foundation  for  it  to  rest 
upon  and  no  plan  for  its  redemption  provided.  Toombs'  dis- 
gust was  complete.  He  used  to  say  the  niggers  run  the  presses 
all  day  making  money  for  the  white  folks,  then,  at  night,  they 
were  allowed  to  work  the  machine  to  run  off  the  money  to  pay 
their  wages. 

He  and  Mr.  Davis  were  civil  enough  to  each  other  in  their 
personal  relations,  for  each  was  a  gentleman,  but  the  utter  lack 
of  harmony  between  them  soon  made  Toombs'  position  un- 
bearable to  him.  Besides,  he  had  said  so  much  before  the  war 
about  fighting,  that  he  may  have  felt  that  he  must  do  some 
of  it.  Throwing  up  his  commission  in  the  Cabinet,  he  went 
to  the  army  as  Brigadier.  Here  his  service  was  fitful,  and  not 
regularly  worthy  of  him.  He  chafed  under  the  restraints  of 
discipline ;  loudly  criticised  the  stupid  blunders  of  superior 


52 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


officers;  denounced  the  West  Point  narrowness  which,  as  he 
thought,  dominated  Mr.  Davis;  and  was  altogether  a  most 
turbulent  Brigadier.  He  was  sickened  at  the  sight  of  the 
massacre  of  gallant  troops  at  Malvern  Hill,  where  the  awful 
mistakes  of  Magruder  and  other  Southern  commanders  re- 
sulted in  such  frightful  losses.  He  had  a  furious  quarrel  with 
Gen.  D.  H.  Hill,  challenging  that  officer  to  mortal  combat. 
He  was  put  under  arrest  by  Gen.  Longstreet  for  insubordina- 
tion, to  be  released  upon  terms  most  honorable  to  himself  and 
to  Lee's  "Old  War  Horse."  He  displayed  such  fiery  gallantry 
at  Sharpsburg,  in  holding  the  bridge,  that  he  won  for  himself 
immortality  as  a  soldier  by  being  singled  out  for  special 
mention  in  the  official  report  of  Gen.  Robert  E.  Lee. 

TOOMBS  AS  A  FIGHTER. 
What  General  Longstreet  Has  to  Say  About  Our  Bob. 

In  a  conversation  with  General  Longstreet,  concerning  the  Con- 
federate generals  with  whom  he  was  associaTed,  he  said: 

"Do  you  know  General  Robert  Toombs,  of  your  State,  was  one  of 
the  bravest  and  most  daring  soldiers  that  I  ever  saw  on  any  field?" 

"He  was  pretty  hard  to  manage,  was  he  not?" 

"Yes,  sir;  at  first.    He  had  literally  no  idea  of  subordination. 
He  was  born  to  rule,  and  had  been  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  his 
birth  pretty  well,  up  to  the  time  he  entered  the  army.    It  was  hard 
for  him  to  give  up  his  lordly  habits  even  them. 

"I  remember  a  characteristic  instance  in  which  General  Toombs 
figured.  I  sent  out  his  brigade  on  picket  duty  once.  Of  course, 
the  discretion  of  placing  the  brigades  was  in  the  hands  of  the  proper 
officers.  Toombs  had  been  out  that  day  dining  with  a  Marylander 
named  Dennis,  who  had  been  one  of  his  colleagues  during  his  Con- 
gressional career.  They  had  old  wine  for  winner,  and  Toombs  was 
riding  home  feeling  like  a  lord. 

*  Suddenly  he  ran  against  his  brigade  on  picket  duty.  He  was 
very  much  angered. 

"  'Who  put  you  here?'  he  shouted. 

"He  was  answered  that  it  was  orders  from  headquarters. 

"  'Well,  by  G — d,  my  orders  are  that  you  come  back  to  camp. 
I'm  not  going  to  have  all  the  picket  duty  of  the  army  put  on  my 
brigade.    Come  along!" 

"And  sure  enough,  he  led  them  back  to  their  camp. 

"As  soon  as  I  heard  of  it,  I  of  course  ordered  him  under  arrest. 

"As  was  the  custom,  he  was  simply  ordered  to  ride  in  the  rear 
of  his  brigade.  I  thought  everything  was  going  off  all  right,  when 
suddenly  an  officer  came  to  me  and  told  me  that  we  would  have  a 
revolt  in  the  army,  if  I  did  not  interfere.  I  asked  him  what  he 
meant  and  he  told  me  that  General  Toombs  was  riding  along  in  the 
rear  of  his  brigade,  and  exhorting  the  soldiers  against  the  oppres- 
sion that  had  been  practiced  toward  them  and  him.  My  informant 
said  that  the  soldiers  were  getting  very  restless. 

"I  at  once  ordered  General  Toombs  back  to  Gordonville.  I  kept 
him  there  a  day  or  two,  when  having  received  a  very  handsome  let- 
ter from  him,  I  ordered  him  to  the  front  again.  He  came  as  fast  as 
his  horse  could  carry  him. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  53 


"When  he  reached  us,  Gen.  Lee  and  myself  were  together  con- 
sulting about  the  opening  of  a  battle,  which  was  just  then  pending. 
As  Gen.  Toombs  rode  up,  and  saluted,  I  stated  that  I  would  take 
great  pleasure  in  sending  a  courier  with  orders  restoring  him  to 
his  command.  He  spoke  up  rapidly  and  said  that  as  a  charge  was 
imminent  he  should  like  to  head  it,  and  hoped  that  he  might  be  the 
bearer  of  the  orders  himself. 

"I  of  course  assented.  In  a  few  moments  Toombs'  brigade 
passed  us,  hurrying  to  the  charge,  and  Toombs  flying  in  the  front 
like  a  comet,  leading  them  to  the  assault. 

"He  was  as  dashing  a  soldier  as  ever  went  on  the  battle  field, 
and  a  hardy  and  impetuous  fighter." 

In  the  course  of  a  long  conversation,  Gen.  Longstreet  repeatedly 
expressed  his  admiration  for  Gen.  Toombs,  and  commented  on  his 
daring  qualities. 

After  the  collapse  of  the  Confederacy,  he  made  good  his 
escape  to  Europe  where  he  spent  his  time  in  traveling  about, 
studying  peoples  and  institutions;  finally  coming  home  when 
the  dangers  of  arbitrary  punishment  had  passed  away  with 
the  utter  failure  of  the  prosecution  of  Jefferson  Davis. 

After  the  war.  Toombs  was  practically  a  national  outcast. 
His  disabilities  were  never  removed.  He  never  took  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Government.  He  gloried,  to  the 
last,  in  the  fact  that  he  was  an  unreconstructed  rebel.  By 
court-house  work,  he  recuperated  broken  fortunes. 

The  oppression  inflicted  upon  our  people  by  railroad  monop- 
olies excited  his  deepest  indignation,  and  he  said :  "If  I  were 
only  forty-five  years  old,  I  would  wage  war  against  these 
monopolies  and  break  them  up."  While  in  Europe,  he  had 
given  much  study  to  the  railroad  problem,  and  he  came  home 
with  the  fixed  idea  of  making  a  struggle  for  governmental 
control  of  transportation  companies.  It  was  at  his  instance, 
mainly,  that  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1877  was  called ; 
and  in  that  body  he  was  the  controlling  spirit.  The  establish- 
ment of  the  railroad  commission  was  his  own  work,  and  he 
fondly  believed  that  he  had  forever  curbed  the  encroachment 
and  the  rapacity  of  the  Northern  corporations  that  were 
robbing  the  Southern  people  in  freight  and  passenger  rates. 
He  had  never  ceased  to  denounce  the  manner  in  which  the 
carpet-baggers  had  looted  the  treasury  of  the  State  by  giving 
aid  to  private  speculation  and  issuing  bonds  for  all  kinds  of 
wild-cat  enterprises.  In  the  new  Constitution  he  forever  made 
that  kind  of  public  dishonesty  impossible  in  Georgia. 

The  last  great  legal  compaign  that  he  ever  conducted  was 
in  behalf  of  the  State  against  tax-dodging  railroad  corpora- 
tions. After  a  series  of  battles  in  which  he  met  and  conquered 
the  ablest  lawyers  that  could  be  brought  against  him,  he  suc- 
ceeded in  securing  the  recognition  of  a  principle  of  taxation 
against  the  railroad,  which  added  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars 


54 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


to  the  annual  revenues  of  the  State. 

One  of  the  most  beautiful  traits  of  the  character  of  this 
leoine  man  was  the  purity  and  tenderness  of  his  devotion  to 
his  wife.  While  always  more  or  less  intemperate  in  his  habits 
and  frequently  intoxicated— his  indulgence  in  this  respect  at 
a  banquet  in  Montgomery  having  been,  it  is  said,  the  cause  of 
his  failure  to  be  elected  President  of  the  Southern  Confederacy 
— his  excess  in  that  direction,  deplorable  as  it  was,  never 
caused  him  to  be  even  suspected  of  conjugal  disloyalty.  He 
might  spend  the  whole  night  at  the  Kimball  House,  Atlanta, 
carousing  with  jolly  companions,  drinking  freely  of  strong 
French  brandy,  and  talking  in  the  wildest,  most  reckless  man- 
ner; but  if  he  were  expecting  his  wife  on  the  early  morning 
train,  as  sometimes  happened,  he  would  suddenly  exclaim, 
"Gentlemen!  I  have  got  to  meet  Mrs.  Toombs  at  the  next 
train,"  and  he  would  call  for  a  pitcher  of  sweet  milk,  drink 
perhaps  a  quart  of  it,  and  afterwards  sally  forth,  as  sober  as 
a  judge,  to  meet  the  morning  train,  and  escort  Mrs.  Toombs, 
with  all  the  gallantry  of  youth,  to  her  apartment  in  the  hotel. 

During  his  later  years,  he  reminded  one  of  some  crumbling, 
colossal  ruin.  One  could  realize  that  much  of  the  mighty 
fabric  had  fallen,  but  that  which  remained  towered  aloft  in  a 
grandeur  of  its  own,  so  that  even  his  decline  was  great.  As 
the  Coliseum  still  suggests  the  might  of  imperial  Eome,  as 
the  isolated  pillars  of  Karnak  are  eloquent  reminders  of  a 
glory  that  is  gone,  so  the  fitful  flashes  of  Toombs'  intellect,  to 
the  very  last,  revealed  a  largeness  of  mental  proportion  which, 
though  in  ruins,  recalled  former  grandeur. 

He  died  at  his  home  in  Washington,  Wilkes  County,  in 
December,  1885. 

While  Gen.  Toombs,  after  the  war,  remained  a  national 
outcast,  his  position  and  his  personality  were  so  picturesque 
and  strong  that  he  was  interesting  to  the  North  as  well  as  to 
the  South.    When  the  New  York  "Day  Book"  in  1876,  pub- 
lished a  letter  from  him  in  which  he  gave  his  views  on  public 
questions,  the  editor  used  this  glowing  language:  "Robert 
Toombs  is  the  grandest  intellect  on  this  continent.    With  all 
the  breadth  and  depth  of  a  Webster,  he  has  a  brightness  and 
versatility  vastly  surpassing  that  of  the  ponderous  New  Eng- 
lander;  and  though  sometimes  this  brilliant  and  mighty  in- 
tellectual force  is  sadly  marred  by  eccentricities  of  judgment 
as  well  as  speech,  it  is  a  real  calamity  to  this  generation  of 
Americans  when  such  a  man  is  lost  to  the  public  councils." 
To  have  compelled  a  tribute  of  this  sort  from  a  Northern 
editor  who  had  nothing  to  gain  and  much  to  jeopardize  by 
uttering  such  a  eulogy,  is  one  of  the  most  striking  evidences 
of  Toombs'  power.    The  letter  to  which  the  editor  referred 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


55 


was  summed  up  in  his  own  words  as  being  a  plea  for  the 
"Restoration  of  the  American  or  Jeffersonian  idea  of  Govern- 
ment, simplifying  and  confining  it  to  its  legitimate  function 
for  protection  of  person  and  property  for  all  alike,  and  for- 
bidding any  party  or  faction  to  use  it  for  any  class  interest 
or  to  create  any  public  debt,"  This,  Mr.  Toombs  contended, 
was  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  times,  else  the  grand  "Amer- 
ican experiment"  would  prove  a  failure,  both  in  the  North 
and  in  the  South. 

Always  classed  as  a  fire  eater,  Mr.  Toombs  was  ever  more 
violent  in  his  talk  than  in  his  counsel.  Mr.  Stephens  used  to 
say  that  a  more  prudent  adviser  never  sat  at  a  council  board 
than  Robert  Toombs.  Nearly  all  of  his  letters  indicate  pro- 
found thought  and  wise  conclusion.  They  are  state  papers 
that  deserve  to  rank  with  the  best  that  can  be  found  in  the 
English  archives  on  either  side  of  the  water.  In  heart  and 
soul  and  mind,  he  was  an  English  Whig  of  the  type  of  Charles 
Fox. 

In  mere  street  talk,  curb-stone  badinage,  hotel-piazza  con- 
versation, he  frequently  spoke  to  the  moment  and  to  the  humor 
of  the  moment.  On  occasions  like  these,  he  was  sometimes 
volcanic  in  his  fiery  denunciations  of  all  that  he  had  hated. 
When  Gen.  Gordon,  Henry  Grady,  Alfred  H.  Colquitt,  and 
Joseph  E.  Brown  were  talking  "New  South"  ideas  and  preach- 
ing reconciliation  between  the  sections,  Toombs'  grandly 
pathetic  isolation  became  more  marked  with  each  succeeding 
year.  To  the  last,  he  was  known  as  a  "cusser  of  the  damned 
Yankees." 

One  day  I  heard  a  lawyer  speak  to  Toombs  about  this, 
deprecating  the  fierceness  of  his  feeling  and  language  against 
the  North.  The  grand  old  man,  bent  with  years,  straightened 
as  though  he  had  been  struck,  and  his  eye  flashed  as  he  im- 
petuously broke  forth : — "Why  shouldn't  I  hate  the  damned 
Yankees?  Didn't  they  trample  upon  the  Constitution  of  my 
country  ?  Didn't  they  violate  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  ?' 
Didn't  they  refuse  every  effort  at  compromise?  Didn't  they 
send  invading  armies  to  crush  my  people?  Didn't  they  hire 
the  scum  of  Europe  to  burn  our  cities,  sack  our  homes,  violate 
our  women?  Didn't  they  hold  us  down  after  the  war  with 
bayonet  rule  and  put  the  nigger  in  control  of  the  life,  the 
liberty,  and  the  property  of  his  former  master?  Didn't  they 
exhaust  every  effort  to  destroy  all  that  the  Southern  people 
most  loved  and  cherished  ?  Etate  them  ?  Yes,  by  God !  I  do 
hate  them!" 

Yet  this  was  the  man  who,  at  the  memorial  service  held  over 
the  dead  body  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  was  unable  to  flowingly 
express  the  mournful  sentiments  of  the  hour  as  the  other 


56  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


orators  had  done.  He  stood  there  shaken  with  grief,  the  tears 
rolling  down  his  cheeks,  unable  to  speak. 

The  Grecian  painter,  Timanthes,  depicting  the  sacrifice  of 
Iphigenia,  could  express  on  the  face  of  everyone  else  present 
the  grief  which  was  felt  at  the  approach  of  the  awful  doom 
of  the  devoted  maiden:  but,  unable  to  throw  into  her  father's 
face  the  agony  inseparable  from  the  hour,  the  artist  drew  a 
mantle  over  the  features  of  Agamemnon,  and  thus  made  the 
hidden  face  the  most  touching  of  all.  So,  at  the  funeral  of 
Alex.  H.  Stephens,  where  orators  of  celebrity  were  delivering 
memorial  eulogies,  Robert  Toombs,  the  greatest  orator  of  them 
all,  was  more  eloquent  than  all,  though  he  said  nothing. 

Of  the  many  anecdotes  concerning  Toombs,  the  following 
are  authentic: 

(i) 

After  the  Civil  War,  a  veteran  who  had  served  in  the  Con- 
federate Army,  and  who  had  before  that,  listened  to  the  fiery 
speeches  of  the  Fire-eater,  met  him,  and  said — 

"Look  here,  Mr.  Toombs,  you  told  us  that  the  Yankees 
wouldn't  be  a  match  for  us,  and  that  we  could  whip  'em  with 
corn-stalks." 

Quick  as  a  flash,  the  old  statesman  answered — 

"Yes,  I  did,  but  d — n  'em!  they  wouldn't  fight  that  way." 

(2) 

When  General  Grant  landed  in  San  Francisco,  after  his 
tour  around  the  world,  he  received  many  telegrams.  One  of 
them  was  from  Robert  Toombs.    It  read  this  way: 

"You  fought  for  your  country  and  won :  I  fought  for  mine, 
and  lost.    Death  to  the  Republic!" 

(3) 

Old  Uncle  J ohnnie  Cartledge,  who  did  not  love  Toombs, 
told  me  this,  one  day  when  he  had  stopped  at  our  home,  on  his 
way  from  the  Post-office: 

"During  one  of  the  hot  fights,  Toombs  sheltered  himself 
behind  a  big  tree,  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  shouting  to 
his  brigade,  'Bush,  hoys,  rushP 

"Some  officer  inquired  of  him  why  he  remained  behind  the 
tree. 

"His  reply  was: 

"  'Toombs  is  too  portly  a  person  to  expose  himself  for  the 
straps  of  a  d— d  Brigadier.'  " 

This  story  is  probably  apocriphal;  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  Gen.  D.  H.  Hill  accused  Toombs  of  cowardice  at 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


the  bloody  battle  of  Malvern  Hill,  and  that  Toombs  afterwards- 
challenged  his  superior  officer  to  fight  a  duel,  on  account  of 
this  accusation. 

(4) 

Toombs  was  defending  X.  H.  of  Columbia  County,  from 
the  charge  of  rape.  The  alleged  victim  was  a  young  white 
woman  who  had  been  living  in  the  household  of  the  accused. 

The  evidence  against  X.  H.  was  very  strong,  and  the  brilliant 
Julian  dimming  was  conducting  the  prosecution  with  great 
power. 

The  defense  claimed  mutual  consent. 

A  witness  for  X.  H.  testified  that  he  had  seen  defendant 
and  the  young  woman  alone  together,  and  that  she  had  allowed 
him  to  place  his  hands  upon  her  bosom. 

In  his  speech,  he  made  the  most  of  this.  His  climax  on  that 
point  was  the  exclamation — 

"When  the  breast  works  are  carried,  the  intrenchments  soon 
fallow/    Ain't  that  so.  Tom-Peter  TTatson  ?" 

The  juror  addressed  was  my  uncle,  brother  of  my  hero,  in 
"Bethany." 

The  juror  answered  Toombs — "Yes.  that's  so." 

X.  H.  was  cleared,  upon  the  theory  that  the  woman  consented 
— though  it  is  practically  certain  that  she  was  forced. 

This  anecdote  was  related  to  me  by  Judge  William  E. 
McLaws.  while  I  was  reading  law  under  him  in  the  city  of 
Augusta,  Ga. 

The  Judge  was  present  at  the  trial  and  heard  both  Toombs 
and  my  uncle. 

(5) 

Judge  John  I.  Hall  told  me  the  following: 

He  was  with  Toombs,  near  Macon.  Ga..  during  the  expiring 

agonies  of  the  Civil  War.    Only  a  small  body  of  soldiers  was 

along. 

A  courier  brought  Toombs  a  dispatch  from  headquarters — 
wherever  that  was.  * 

His  sage  superior  in  command  ordered  that  certain  things 
be  done,  at  once,  to  stay  the  advance  of  the  hosts  of  General 
Sherman. 

Toombs  was  told  to  tear  up  some  little  bridges,  over  some 
little  streams,  cut  the  telegraph  wires  at  a  certain  point,  rip 
up  the  rail-road,  at  a  certain  point,  and — but  Toombs'  patience 
gave  out.    His  scorn  overflowed,  and  he  roared — 

"And — in  the  big-road." 

This  anecdote  has  never  been  in  print  before,  but  it  is  so 
characteristic  of  my  subject  that  I  venture  to  relate  it — leaving: 


58 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


the  reader  to  imagine  what  it  was  that  Toombs  suggested  be 
done  in  the  big-road,  as  equal  to  those  other  things  that  he  was 
ordered  to  do,  to  stop  Sherman's  March  to  the  Sea. 

(6) 

To  revive  the  drooping  spirits  of  the  Confederate  Armies 
of  the  West,  President  Jefferson  Davis  made  a  speech  in  which, 
after  many  other  re-assuring  statements,  he  told  the  soldiers 
that  they  would  soon  be  rested  and  refreshed  when  encamped 
amid  the  green  fields  around  Nashville. 
Toombs  said  that  this  reminded  him  of  the  dying  Fallstaff — 
"His  nose  was  as  sharp  as  a  pen,  and  'a  babbled  V  green 
fields." 

(7) 

The  negro  man  who  had  been  servant  to  Gabriel  Toombs 
in  the  Civil  War,  saved  his  master's  life  one  day  in  battle, 
receiving  a  terrible  wound  in  the  breast. 

This  negro,  after  the  War,  killed  a  man,  and  was  being  tried 
for  murder. 

Eobert  Toombs  volunteered  to  defend.  In  the  course  of  his 
speech  to  the  jury,  Toombs  worked  up  to  a  climax,  and  dramat- 
ically tore  the  negro's  shirt  open,  disclosing  the  scar  received 
in  defense  of  his  master. 

"Will  you  condemn  a  man  like  this — a  man  who  risked  his 
own  life  in  battle  to  save  that  of  his  master?" 

The  appeal  went  home,  and  the  verdict  was  "Not  Guilty." 

(8) 

In  another  murder  case,  the  prosecution  had  to  prove 
arsenical  poisoning. 

The  main  witness  was  the  great  physician,  Dr.  H.  H.  Steiner. 

On  the  direct  examination,  the  good  Doctor  testified  to 
finding  arsenic  in  the  stomach  of  the  deceased. 

Toombs,  for  the  defense,  rose  to  cross-examine. 

"Doctor,  you  believed  that  it  was  a  case  of  arsenical  poison- 
ing, didn't  you?" 
'  "Yes." 

"You  believed  that  you  would  find  arsenic  in  the  stomach?" 
"Yes." 

"You  looked  for  arsenic?" 
"Yes." 

"You  found  what  you  looked  for?" 
"Yes." 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


69 


"Come  down.  Doctor."  said  the  shrewd  lawyer,  blandly — 
and  the  testimony  of  the  witness  was  disregarded  by  the  jury. 

Toombs  lay  on  his  death-bed.  his  mind  wandering. 

At  the  time  his  last  illness  seized  him.  the  Georgia  legisla- 
ture was  in  session. 

TTeeks  wore  by.  as  the  sick  statesman  gradually  neared  the 
great  ferry. 

Towards  the  last,  in  a  lucid  interval,  some  one  in  the  room 
happened  to  mention  what  was  happening  in  the  legislature. 
Toombs  roused  himself: 

••Hasn't  the  legislature  adjourned  yet?" 

"Xo.  General." 

"Send  for  Cromwell!"  he  cried. 

After  the  Civil  War.  Toombs  was  a  picturesque  rather  than 
an  important  personage. 

Nevertheless,  the  newspaper  reporters  were  glad  to  talk  to 
him :  and  he  was  often  urged  to  make  public  speeches.  During 
Reconstruction  days,  when  the  military  arm  of  the  Federal 
Government  held  the  South  in  subjection,  he  prepared  a  lec- 
ture on  Magna  Charta  that  was  said  to  be  wonderfully  fine. 
He  delivered  it  in  several  of  the  cities  of  Georgia.  But  he 
never  wrote  it  out.  and  it  is  lost. 

*  *  *  *  •£  *  *  *  * 

From  an  old  scrap-book  which  I  kept  when  a  young  lawyer. 
I  will  extract  some  newspaper  notices  of  Toombs,  and  will 
give  one  of  his  speeches — one  of  his  very  last. 

Indeed.  I  am  under  the  impression  that  it  was  the  last  politi- 
cal speech  which  he  ever  made. 

WyiAfr  \%] 
A  TALK  AVITH  TOOMBS. 

The  Leonine  Georgian  Unbosoms  Himself  as  to  the  Situation. 

(Correspondence  Cincinnati  Commercial.) 

Washington,  Dec.  20. — General  Robert  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  na- 
tionally known  as  the  Southern  fire-eater,  and  the  gentleman  who 
swore  he  would  never  yield  until  he  called  his  slave-roll  at  the 
foot  of  Bunker  Hill,  is  in  the  city,  attending  to  important  business 
before  the  Supreme  Court.  For  the  last  three  years  he  has  been 
visiting  Washington  frequently,  called  hither  to  argue  cases  before 
the  Supreme  Tribunal.  His  law  practice  is  very  extensive,  and  is 
said  to  be  more  lucrative  than  any  other  private  practice  in  the 
South.  He  never  touches  a  case  for  a  less  consideration  than 
$5,000.  As  a  brilliant  advocate  and  an  able  and  calculating  jurist, 
his  reputation  is  as  great  now  as  in  his  palmy  political  days  when 
he  fired  the  Senate  by  his  burning  rhetoric  and  inflamed  the  South- 


00 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


ern  heart-string  by  his  impassioned  declamation.  We  met  him  as 
he  left  the  Supreme  Court  today,  and  on  presenting  our  card  as  a 
preliminary  for  a  little  talk  we  took  a  survey  of  the  illustrious 
character  while  he  was  considering  our  claims  for  an  audience. 
He  is  a  man  of  five  feet  and  ten  inches  in  height,  with  a  full  170 
pounds  mathematically  distributed  over  his  several  limbs;  his 
physique  is  not  imposing,  but  it  is  impressing  to  one  on  the  first 
meeting  that  within  the  casing  is  an  iron  soul,  a  steel  heart  and  a 
golden  brain;  his  face  is  broad  and  clearly  cut;  his  eyes  are  still 
gray,  and  shine  with  but  little  dimness,  though  sixty-five  years  have 
passed  since  they  first  saw  light;  his  hair  shows  the  pencilings  of 
time  and  the  approach  of  the  grave;  it  is  not  snowy  white,  but 
thoroughly  gray;  in  quantity  it  is  abundant,  and  hangs  in  long, 
^straight  locks  almost  to  his  collar;  it  is  roughly  kept,  showing  that 
;comb  and  brush  are  not  the  most  favorite  utensils  of  his  house- 
hold. His  head  is  unusually  large;  the  forehead  is  broad  and 
almost  excessively  high;  it  is  not  a  retreating  but  a  projecting  and 
joverhanging  one;  the  cerebellum  is  full  and  roundly  developed, 
making  the  intellectual  portion  of  the  gentleman  symmetrical  and 
well-fashioned.  Age  has  shown  its  mark  in  another  particular  by 
stooping  the  sholders  that  were  once  so  straight  and  strong.  His 
clothes  are  quite  common  and  fit  rather  loosely.  His  shirt  was  not 
the  cleanest  we  have  seen,  and  his  tie  could  certainly  have  sus- 
tained a  better  Chesterfield  twist. 

s  "Well,"  says  he,  after  glancing  at  our  card,  with  a  very  polite 
"bow  and  a  warm  grasp  of  the  hand,  "I  am  glad  to  see  you,  but  I 
do  not  want  to  be  asked  any  questions  of  a  personal  or  strong 
political  character.  You  must  remember  that  I  am  not  a  citizen  of 
this  country,  so  I  should  not  be  used  as  the  oracle  of  the  views  of 
any  sect  or  organization." 

-  After  giving  assurances  that  no  personal  questions  should  be 
introduced,  we  ventured  on  the  broad  question  as  to  the  condition 
'of  the  South. 

"The  South,"  said  he,  "is  poor,  not  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy, 
but  clear  down  in  the  abyss  of  poverty;  not  one  decade,  but  two,  it 
will  take  to  restore  the  South  to  her  pristine  glory  and  position. 
The  war  left  us  in  a  horrible  condition,  but  by  perseverence, 
economy,  education,  and  the  restoration  of  local  government,  we 
will  in  time  fully  recuperate/' 

"Who  is  the  South  in  favor  of  for  President  in  1880  on  the 
Democratic  ticket;  and  if  the  Republicans  are  to  have  another 
^Executive,  who  would  the  South  prefer?" 

"Well,  I  will  answer  your  last  question  first.  If,  by  the  decrees 
of  Omnipotence,  we  are  not  to  be  free  for  four  years  more  from 
radical  power,  then  I  should  say  give  us  a  full  lion,  not  a  sucking 
sheep.  Grant  is  a  lion.  I  have  respect  for  the  man,  because  he 
Tails  or  wins.  I  have  never  forgotten  how  gracefully  he  treated 
Xiee  and  our  soldiers  at  Appomattox." 

(2) 

TOOMBS  ON  THE  SITUATION. 

The  Quiet  Irony  of  the  Retired  Statesman. 

Somehow  or  other,  when  General  Toombs  makes  his  appearance 
in  town,  he  always  stumbles  against  a  Constitution  reporter.  He 
•stumbled  against  one  yesterday. 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  61 


"Well,  General,"  said  the  newspaper  man,  "what  do  you  think 
of  the  elections?" 

"I  think  a  good  deal  and  say  little.  I'm  getting  too  old  to  talk. 
I'm  too  old  to  work  the  roads  and  too  old  to  vote.  In  ancient 
times  they  used  to  have  infirmaries  for  old  men.  In  these  days 
you  boys  merely  want  to  hear  them  talk — and  they  talk  too  much." 

"But  you  see,  General,  we  make  allowances  for  that." 

"Oh,  yes;  I  understand  that.  You  make  allowances,  and  then 
you  go  off  and  print  what  I  probably  ought  to  have  said,  but 
didn't.  You  are  a  nice  set — you  editors.  But  I  like  you  though, 
and  for  that  reason  I  forgive  you." 

"But  about  the  elections?"  persisted  the  reporter. 

"Well,  they've  gone  pretty  much  as  I  would  have  had  them  go. 
That  was  a  rare  fight  Persons  made  in  the  fourth." 

"It  was  a  surprising  one." 

"So  you  say.  But  it  didn't  surprise  me.  Persons  is  a  man  of 
intellect  and  culture." 

"But  how  about  Felton?" 

"Felton?"  said  the  General,  affecting  surprise.  "Who  is  Felton? 
Why,  I  thought  The  Constitution  had  compelled  Felton  to  retire. 
He  isn't  elected,  is  he?    Well,  bless  my  soul!" 

"That's  what  they  say,  General.    They  say  he's  elected." 

Whereupon  General  Toombs  chuckled  gleefully,  and  remarked: 

"Well,  I'll  tell  you  what,  the  old  man  is  a  tough  one.  They  say 
his  face  is  hard  enough  to  crack  hickory-nuts  upon,  and  when  a 
load  of  squirrel-shot  is  fired  at  him  he  sheds  it  as  a  duck  does 
water.  That  is  the  reason  you  didn't  win.  You  fired  at  him  with 
squirrel-shot.    They  didn't  penetrate." 

"But  suppose,"  said  the  reporter,  "Felton  concludes  to  run  for 
Governer — what  then?" 

"Then  I'm  for  him,"  said  General  Toombs,  emphatically. 

Thereupon  the  reporter,  weeping  thoughtfully  over  the  General's 
independentism,  withdrew  his  forces  and  retired. 

The  Persons  alluded  to  had  been  elected  to  Congress,  as  an 
Independent  ( 1874) . 

Dr.  Felton  was  a  magnificent  orator  who  fought  against 
Wall  Street  finance  in  Congress,  and  prophesied  the  evils  of 
the  Contraction  policy  of  the  Government. 

He  also  made  the  fight  for  Free-of -tariff-duty  Quinine. 

And  he  saved  ,the  State  Eailroad  (The  Western  &  Atlantic)  y 
from  the  sharks,  that  were  after  it. 

(3) 

GENERAL  TOOMBS  IX  THE  CAPITOL. 

A  Characteristic  Speech,  in  Which  the  Tariff,  the  Public  Debt,  Pub- 
lic Expenses  and  Official  Extravagance  Are  Denounced. 
Mr.  Hill  Follows  Him  in  a  Ringing  Speech. 

During  the  past  week  General  Robert  Toombs  has-  remained  in 
our  city  as  a  guest  of  the  Kimball.  At  frequent  times  efforts  were 
made  to  get  him  to  address  the  members  of  the  legislature  upon 
the  current  events  of  the  day.  Yesterday,  he  gave  his  consent  to 
make  them  a  speech,  and  during  the  morning  session  of  the  legis- 


62 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


lature  a  resolution  was  passed  in  the  House  tending  him  the  use 
of  the  hall  during  the  evening.  The  announcement  that  he  would 
speak  had  the  effect  of  bringing  out  a  large  crowd,  and  on  last 
night  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  was  crowded  until 
standing-room  was  not  to  be  had  for  love  or  money.  At  8  o'clock 
General  Toombs  entered  the  hall  and  mounted  the  Speaker's  stand. 
As  he  was  well  known  to  all  who  were  present,  an  introduction  to 
the  audience  that  had  assembled  to  hear  him  was  unnecessary,  and 
he  at  once  commenced  the  duties  that  were  before  him.  He  spoke 
as  follows: 

General  Toombs'  Speech. 

Fellow-Citizens:  I  undertake  the  duty  to  which  you  have  called 
me  with  some  reluctance  tonight,  mainly  on  account  of  my  own 
physical  disability.  The  condition  of  the  country  suggests  the 
subject.  It  is  the  subject  that  occupies  all  men's  heads  and  all 
men's  hearts.  It  is  the  public  distress  that  is  everywhere  pervading 
the  country,  without  reference  to  section,  climate  or  pursuits. 
Hence,  it  becomes  your  duty  as  representatives  of  the  people  of 
Georgia  to  give  your  best  exertions  and  efforts  to  searching  out  its 
causes,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  to  alleviate  our  distress.  This  gen- 
eral distress  is  not  the  work  of  Providence.  Old  Mother  Earth  has 
not  forgotten  her  children.  Looking  over  this  broad  land  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  general 
prosperity,  abudance  and  plenty  exist  in  all  sections  of  the  country 
except  that  portion  which  has  been  devastated  with  that  terrible 
scourge.  Elsewhere  we  have  had  health  and  abundance.  That  is 
a  general  rule;  of  course  there  are  exceptions.  That  is  the  general 
result  all  over  the  continent.  Yet,  in  the  midst  of  all  there  is 
hankruptcy,  turmoil  and  discontent  pervading  all  classes  of  the 
people.  Why?  What  is  the  reason,  when  nature  is  so  beneficent; 
when  industry  has  been  devoting  itself  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
country;  why  are  not  the  people  happy  and  prosperous?  Crimes 
are  everywhere;  discontent  prevails  everywhere.  As  I  have  told 
you,  it  is  not  the  act  of  God;  it  is  not  the  deed  of  Providence,  but 
it  is  bad  government  that  is  the  fountain  of  all  your  woes. 
(Applause.) 

Seventeen  years  ago  when  the  war  between  the  States  com- 
menced, this  Government  was  carried  on  for  less  than  $60,000,000. 
The  public  debt  did  not  amount  to  $60,000,000.  We  had  a  small 
army  of  about  6,000  men.  We  had  a  little  navy,  and  we  were  an 
industrious,  happy  people.  The  revenue  had  been  brought  down  to 
the  wants  of  the  people.  The  tariff  was  brought  down  2  0  per  cent. 
Every  department  of  the  Government  was  run  with  honesty  and 
integrity.  But  the  men  of  the  Eastern  States  did  not  desire  that 
state  of  things  to  continue.  From  the  time  our  fathers  sat  with 
them  at  the  council  board  at  Philadelphia  and  all  through  the 
struggles  that  followed  down  to  that  day,  they  wanted  to  carry  on 
the  Government  on  a  different  principle.  They  wanted  protection 
for  all  their  products  and  all  their  manufactures.  They  wanted  to 
hring  money  into  the  treasury  and  apply  it  to  theii  own  benefit. 
They  sought  to  sequester  the  public  lands,  and  put  them  to  their 
own  uses,  and  not  those  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  The 
first  thing  they  did  was  to  commence  carrying  out  that  policy.  They 
enlarged  all  your  expenditures;  they  issued  tens  and  hundreds  of 
million  of  paper  currency,  the  furnishing  of  which  had  hitherto 
helonged  to  the  people  of  the  different  States.    They  then  got  other 


J 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  63 

institutions  to  help  them.  They  commenced  throwing  away  in  mil- 
lions the  public  lands  of  the  country,  the  common  domain  of  all  the 
people,  and  turning  hundreds  of  millions  out  of  the  treasury  in 
carrying  on  a  war — not  in  any  view  that  they  cared  for  the  prin- 
ciples at  issue — they  cared  not  one-half  as  much  for  the  negro  as 
the  people  of  the  South — but  simply  to  retain  control  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. They  carried  on  the  Government  in  178  7  for  one  term 
under  the  elder  Adams — a  very  good  man — but  the  best  of  that 
class  of  men  that  the  people  trusted  until  Lincoln  came  into  power. 
When  they  got  into  possession  of  the  Government,  the  first  object 
was  to  overthrow  the  South,  to  overthrow  her  institutions,  to 
invade  her  soil  and  to  murder  her  inhabitants.  And  to  effect  this 
purpose  they  brought  all  the  people  they  could  from  Ireland,  Ger- 
many and  the  lands  beyond  the  sea.  They  got  hold  of  the  Gov- 
ernment seventeen  years  ago  and  inflicted  upon  us  the  worst  race 
of  thieves  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  (Applause.)  Nobody  dis- 
putes that.  They  take  all  the  premiums  for  that.  (Applause.) 
They  stand  out  as  a  reproach  to  the  human  race.  They  have  got 
so  common  that  the  public  sensibilities  have  been  deadened.  After 
the  war  they  flooded  the  treasury  with  seven  hundred  millions  of 
greenbacks  and  a  hundred  millions  of  national  bank  notes.  There 
never  was  a  government  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that  could  make 
money.  There  never  was  a  government  on  earth  that  could  make 
a  fig-leaf  to  cover  the  nakedness  of  our  mother  Eve.  They  could 
draw  money  from  the  treasury  and  appropriate  it  to  their  own  use, 
but  they  can't  make  a  dollar  of  money.  It  seems  to  be  the  idea 
of  some  gentlemen  in  these  days,  and  when  I  was  a  boy  they  had  a 
good  deal  of  that  idea,  that  if  you  want  money,  you  can  just  stamp 
it.  All  the  Government  has  to  do  is  simply  to  stamp  it.  You  may 
stamp  all  you  please,  but  how  are  you  going  to  redeem  it?  On  that 
subject,  I  believe  very  much  in  my  old  friend  Preston's  ideas  on 
redeeming  it.  "I  am  against  redemption,"  said  he.  "Take  all  the 
money  and  burn  it  up."  (Laughter.) 

These  people  thought  they  would  protect  the  raw  material  of 
the  country.  Finally  they  caught  up  with  the  consumption  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  was  a  loss  on  their  hands.  Everybody  could 
compete  with  them,  and  successfully.  And  what  was  the  result? 
There  were  no  United  States  ships  that  floated  on  the  ocean.  The 
fact  was  that  we  were  ahead  of  no  nation  on  earth  but  the  Indians. 
(Laughter.)  After  that  work  was  accomplished  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  exerted  all  manner  of  means  for  retaining  the 
power  they  had  obtained.  Frauds  everywhere  in  the  elections 
became  a  by-word,  and  you  all  know  that  to  cap  the  climax  they 
stole  the  Presidency.  (Applause.)  They  had  stolen  towns,  cities 
and  States,  and  then  stole  the  Presidency.  They  went  on  until 
they  brought  up  the  national  debt  to  $2,000,000,0.00.  We  have  not 
done  as  much,  perhaps,  because  we  have  commenced  later. 
(Laughter.)  They  robbed  some  of  our  States  by  their  deputies. 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia  and  the  other  States  of 
the  South  went  through  a  second  robbery — a  complete  spoilation. 
Their  great  idea  was  to  develoD  the  country — to  make  everybody 
rich.  If  I  should  make  a  new  dictionary  to  succeed  old  Worcester, 
I  would  make  a  new  definition  for  development.  Development 
means  robbing  the  people.  As  I  have  said,  here  were  the  national 
debts.  Then  the  tariff  touched  everybody.  It  protects  the  manu- 
facturer, but  plays  the  deuce  with  the  consumer.  (Laughter.) 
Building  railroads  whenever  the  State  would  indorse  the  bonds  got 
us  for  some  thirty  or  forty  millions.    We  threw  off  some,  and  I 


64 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


wish  the  rest  had  gone  with  it.  I  shall  not  cry  because  my  people 
will  not  pay  for  thefts,  any  more  than  I  would  pay  for  my  own 
chains.  (Applause.) 

When  the  Republican  party  got  through  here,  we  were  ten 
thousand  millions  in  debt,  everybody  breaking,  everybody  ruined; 
and  that  is  the  condition  today  throughout  the  United  States. 

The  money  changer  and  the  bondholder  is  the  only  one  that 
holds  his  own,  and  he  has  to  keep  his  hand  on  it  all  the  time  and 
pray  for  it.  (Applause  and  laughter.)  God  Almighty  curses  them 
for  it.  Here  is  the  vast  number  of  people  all  over  the  country  toil- 
ing and  struggling,  and  there  never  was  a  country  on  the  face  of 
the  earth  that  worked  harder  and  lived  worse  than  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States.  They  have  lived  hard,  worked  hard  and  made 
nothing.  It  becomes  us,  and  especially  our  legislators,  to  know  how 
this  is.  It  is  not  all  the  fault  of  the  Government.  Our  own  folly 
has  something  to  do  with  it;  but  the  great  part  of  it  has  been  done 
>by  bad  government.  We  have  had  to  pay  heavy  taxes.  All  these 
public  debts,  independent  of  people's  own  debts,  had  to  be  paid. 

What  is  the  consequence?  You  are  taxed  until  it  leaves  no 
profit,  until  what  you  produce  does  not  pay  to  make  it;  and  "that's 
what's  the  matter  with  Hannah."  (Laughter.)  All  that  you  can 
raise  in  cotton,  and  when  you  have  done  that  there  is  not  enough 
left  to  pay  you.  The  debts  of  our  people  have  gone  on  from  day  to 
day,  and  what  is  worse  the  greater  number  of  people  in  this  country 
don't  care  any  more  for  their  debts  than  you  do.  (Laughter.)  They 
make  a  little  cotton,  have  a  little  to  start  the  new  year  on  and  then 
they  go  ahead.  In  Georgia  you  owe  $11,000,000  of  money.  That 
is  your  part  of  the  spoliation  of  Bullock  &  Co.  Here  are  your  cities: 
and  towns  with  a  tax  of  one  and  a  half  and  two  per  cent.  You  have 
to  go  on  and  pay  that.  In  this  schedule,  which  has  been  furnished 
me  by  the  comptroller-general,  it  states  that  you  pay  seven  mil- 
lions of  dollars  for  transportation,  while  your  cotton  is  not  worth 
twenty  millions.  That  shows  simply  the  internal  transportation. 
I  remember  the  time  when  the  people  of  my  section  never  paid  a 
dollar  for  transportation.  They  raised  their  own  stock,  and  carried 
their  cotton  to  Augusta  and  laid  in  their  supplies,  and  came  back 
again  with  money  in  their  pockets.  Here  is  a  system  that  would 
have  taken  a  generation  to  stand.  It  would  have  taken  a  miracle 
to  have  saved  us,  and  that  was  the  object  of  our  enemies.  Ruin 
aroused  us.  If  you  started  a  little  bank  of  two  or  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  you  would  enter  into  a  copartnership  with  some- 
body in  New  York,  and  they  caught  you  there.  We  suffered  more 
than  anybody  else  from  this  system.  If  this  factory  here  buys 
cotton  today  on  the  streets,  it  will  be  on  the  Livrpool  price-current 
in  gold.  It  is  the  fluctuation  that  troubles  us.  The  time  was  when 
I  saw  fifty-three  per  cent,  go  up  and  down  at  one  time  in  New  York. 
"Black  Friday,"  they  called  it,  and  it  was  a  black  day  for  a  heap  of 
them.  I  say  to  you  tonight,  gentlemen,  it  is  my  honest  opinion 
from  close  observation,  that  from  the  time  I  came  back,  in  18  67, 
from  abroad  when  I  had  run  away  from  the  thieves  and  radicals, 
until  now,  there  has  not  a  single  sun  set  that  did  not,  find  the 
people  poorer  than  when  it  rose.  Some  people  have  risen,  but  I 
say  to  you,  it  is  my  honest  opinion  that  there  has  not  been  a  day 
when  the  sun  has  not  set  upon  the  people  to  find  them  poorer  than 
when  it  arose.  They  have  lived  among  sorrows  and  desolations,  and 
they  look  to  you  to  help  them  out  of  this  condition. 

The  system  of  transportation  is  one  of  the  most  important  of 
all  questions  to  the  whole  world,  and  it  is  more  important  to  the 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary.  Etc. 


65 


United  States  than  any  other  nation  because  of  our  extent  of  country. 
In  this  boundless  extent  of  territory  there  is  no  question  of  equal 
importance  to  the  United  States  and  Georgia  than  the  subject  of 
transportation. 

The  great  idea  when  the  roads  were  chartered  in  our  State  was 
to  leave  everything  to  competition.  That  was  the  general  belief, 
and  it  was  my  own.  But  it  turned  out  very  soon,  as  a  great  English 
engineer  has  said,  that  where  combination  was  possible,  competition 
was  worthless.  You  need  not  be  blind.  That  fact  has  been  settled 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all.  Here  are  three  or  four  of  these  roads 
that  meet  here  in  Atlanta  in  defiance  of  competition,  and  in  defiance 
of  law,  coming  up  every  day  and  "pooling"  over  you.  The  news- 
papers say  every  day  these  people  have  made  no  money. 

Fellow-citizens,  it  has  been  my  duty  as  the  attorney  of  the  State 
for  several  years  to  look  into  this  business.  I  say  that  no  regular 
industry  in  the  State  of  Georgia  has  ever  paid  like  the  railroads. 
The  Georgia  Railroad  has  made  an  average  of  $1,5  00  per  day.  It 
has  now  $1,500,000,  and  it  has  watered  its  stock. 

That  is  the  way  the  poor  railroads  are  getting  along. 

In  the  days  of  Bulloch  they  built  roads  where  nobody  ever 
wanted  them.  Like  the  road  from  Macon  to  Jesup — they  started 
nowhere  and  stopped  nowhere.  That  is  the  case  with  the  Gulf 
road.  They  got  a  million  dollars,  and,  of  course,  built  it  nowhere 
with  everybody's  money.  The  public  went  into  it,  and  the  man  who 
started  the  road  didn't  have  a  quarter  of  a  dollar  to  cover  his  eyes 
with.  These  were  the  roads  that  failed.  These  were  the  roads 
that  didn't  pay.  We  went  into  it  with  the  money  and  they  con- 
tributed the  experience,  and  they  come  out  with  the  money,  and 
we  have  the  experience. 

Here  we  are  getting  poorer  every  day.  For  the  last  two  years 
the  taxes  of  the  people  of  Georgia  on  taxable  property  have  dimin- 
ished ten  millions  per  annum.  We  are  going  down,  down,  down! 
There  is  a  great  work  you  have  to  do.  Let  the  legislature  look 
into  it.  Let  us  destroy  nothing.  We  have  got  nothing  to  destroy. 
We  must  try  to  save  all  we  have  got.  Let  us  do  justice  to  every- 
body, and  start  afresh  on  an  honest  bottom;  start  with  an  honest 
government;  keep  honest  money,  and  honest  contracts,  and  the 
country  will  be  saved.  (Applause.) 

After  Toombs  had  finished.  Senator  Ben  Hill  was  called 
upon  for  a  speech. 

He  besran  by  a  tribute  to  Toombs,  of  whom  he  said: 
"We  know  that  his  head  is  great  and  his  heart  is  true." 


The  Glory  That  was  Greece. 


They  will  tell  you  that  the  people  are  incapable  of  self- 
government;  that  the  mob  is  a  great  beast;  that  in  every 
democracy  lies  the  germ  of  dissolution.  Very  lofty  and  super- 
cilious is  the  scorn  with  which  your  Allisons  and  Hamiltons 
and  William  Pitts  look  down  upon  plain  commoners.  Even 
genial  Sydney  Smith  must  have  his  fling  at  "them  asses." 

How  odd  it  is  that  a  recluse  poet,  like  Gray,  musing  in  a 
country  church-yard,  should  strike  a  deeper,  truer  note  in  the 
study  of  possibilities  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  ornate  orations 
of  Burke.  What  a  proof  of  innate  ideas  it  is  that  Robert 
Burns,  the  illiterate  Scotch  bard,  should,  in  one  impromptu, 
indignant  burst  of  lyric  verse,  pour  forth  the  essential  truths 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, — the  creed  of  democracy. 

The  fathers  who  founded  our  Federal  Government  had  no 
faith  in  the  people.  In  a  sly,  covert  way,  the  few  who  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  Old  Confederation  set  out  to  overthrow 
it.  A  loose  Confederacy  did  not  suit  them;  they  wanted  a 
centralized  government  in  which  the  privileged  few  should 
manipulate  the  republic  to  their  own  advantage.  They  pro- 
fessed a  desire  to  amend  the  Articles  of  the  Confederation; 
and  the  sincerity  of  these  professions  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that,  when  they  convened  for  business,  they  drew  from  their 
pockets  new  constitutions  creating  a  new  national  government. 
They  deliberated  behind  closed  doors,  for  fear  that  their 
constituents  might  learn  what  wras  going  on  and  might  arouse 
themselves  to  protest.  They  forbade  the  keeping  of  any  record 
of  their  proceedings.  It  was  not  until  1842,  when  the  Madison 
Papers  were  given  to  the  world  that  the  American  people  knew 
what  had  passed  behind  those  closed  doors. 

It  was  then  too  late.  Had  the  proceedings  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1787  been  faithfully  kept  and  promptly  published, 
Hamilton  could  never  have  overcome  Jefferson  in  the  matter 
of  the  National  Bank,  for  the  world  would  have  known  that 
the  authority  to  charter  a  corporation,  proposed  in  the  Con- 
vention, had  been  voted  down.  Nor  would  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  have  been  able  to  make  the  decision  in  "Marbury  vs. 
Madison,"  arrogating  to  the  Supreme  Court  the  Constitutional 
right  to  set  aside  Acts  of  Congress,  for  the  delegation  of  power 
to  the  Court  was  proposed  and  voted  down  in  the  Constitu- 
tional Convention. 

When  the  Convention  of  1787  had  finished  its  work,  they 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


67 


offered  to  the  country  a  scheme  of  government  which  was  un- 
democratic, in  letter  and  in  spirit.  Instead  of  leaving  sov- 
ereign power  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  the  new  Constitution 
created  a  Senate  which  the  masses  could  not  control,  a  federal 
judiciary  which  was  purely  aristocratic  and  oligarchal,  and  a 
President  who  wields  greater  power  than  the  kings  of  mod- 
ern, limited  monarchies. 

The  fathers  created  this  kind  of  government  because  they 
honestly  believed  that  the  people  needed  masters — being  in- 
capable of  self-government. 

Yet,  looking  back  over  the  long  reaches  of  the  past,  what 
monarchy,  what  aristocracy,  escaped  the  decline  and  fall 
which  overtook  democracies?  Alike,  they  were  born,  grew 
into  greatness,  sunk  into  decrepitude  and  death.  The  five 
"Great  Monarchies'' — what  did  they  leave  for  us  save  a  melan- 
choly lesson  and  a  few  mounds  from  which  archaeologists  dig 
terra-cotta  tablets,  winged  bulls,  mutilated  sphinxes,  and  crude 
wall-paintings. 

What  did  the  aristocracies  bequeath  to  us. — excepting  grue- 
some records  of  human  greed,  weakness,  vice,  cruelty  and 
crime?  Nothing.  Xot  an  illustrious  name,  not  an  inspiring 
thought,  not  a  glorious  achievement.  Commenting  upon  the 
stifling  effect  which  aristocracy  has  upon  genius,  Macaulay 
says. — the  reference  being  to  Venice : 

"God  forbid  that  there  should  ever  again  exist  a  powerful 
and  civilized  state,  which,  after  existing  through  1300  eventful 
years,  shall  not  bequeath  to  mankind  the  memory  of  one  great 
name  or  one  generous  action.'' 

When  we  speak  of  "the  glory  that  was  Greece."  we  mean 
Athens.  Spartan  ruggedness  and  heroism,  Macedonia's  mete- 
oric career  of"  conquest,  Epaminondas  and  his  dauntless  The- 
bans,  may  each  claim  the  tribute  of  admiration,  but  it  is  to 
Athens  that  we  turn  to  find  the  glory  that  was  Greece — the 
oratory  whose  rapt  audience  has  been  succeeding  ages,  whose 
poesy  has  outlived  empires  and  peoples,  whose  art  is  the 
despair  of  modern,  as  it  was  the  pride  of  the  ancient  world, 
whose  wise  men  and  great  men  are  yet  types  which  defy  ap- 
proach ;  whose  ideals  of  home-life  and  state-life  were  as  splen- 
did as  was  the  courage  that  conquered  at  Marathon  and 
Salamis. 

Says  F.  Hopkinson  Smith,  describing  a  recent  visit  to  the 
Parthenon : 

"What  I  saw  was  an  epoch  in  stone;  a  chronic  telling  the 
story  of  a  civilization,  a  glove  thrown  down  to  posterity, 
challenging  the  competition  of  the  world." 

Remember  this  tremendous  fact :  what  the  writer  so  feelingly 

4— Sketches 


68  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


described,  are  the  ruins  left  by  more  than  two  thousand  years, 
left  by  vandal  hordes  that  came  to  destroy ;  left  by  Goths,  like 
Lord  Elgin,  who  came  to  take  and  carry  away. 

The  English  monarchy  is  old  and  rich  and  powerful  and 
civilized, — tell  us  what  there  is  in  London  that  would  with- 
stand the  ravages  of  2,000  years,  the  inroads  of  barbaric  armies, 
the  spoliations  of  countless  Vandal  hands? 

Athens  was  a  democracy.  It  was  the  state  which  set  the 
world  the  example  of  intrusting  supreme  power  to  the  people. 
It  was  there  that  the  principles  of  civic  liberty  were  first  given 
freedom  of  action. 

The  historian  alluding  to  Athens — "the  eye  of  Greece, 
mother  of  arts  and  eloquence" — declares  that  the  passion  for 
gain  had  been  lost  in  the  strife  for  glory.  No  man  was  classi- 
fied as  great  because  he  was  rich.  Alexander  the  Great  as- 
sumed no  superiority  over  Apelles  the  matchless  painter,  nor 
over  Aristotle,  the  profound  philosopher.  The  Athenian 
standard  of  success  was  higher,  truer,  more  of  an  inspiration 
to  good  citizenship.  "What  has  he  done,  in  war  or  in  peace, 
oh  the  battle-field,  in  the  academy,  in  the  Council,  in  the 
Assembly,  in  science,  art,  or  literature  ?  Has  he  carried  off  the 
prize  in  the  Olympic  Games  ?  Do  students  flock  to  his  school  * 
Do  breathless  multitudes  hang  upon  his  tongue  when  he 
speaks  ?  Are  his  paintings  visions  of  beauty  ?  Do  his  statues 
attain  the  ideal?  Is  the  temple  that  he  rears  a  wonder  of  the 
world?" 

These  were  the  questions  which  probed  character  at  Athens, 
and  fixed  the  standing  of  her  citizens.  It  does  not  appear  that 
riches  were  able  to  rule  this  democracy;  nor  did  the  mere 
demagogue  acquire  ascendancy.  On  the  contrary,  no  man  ever 
wielded  over  any  people  the  personal  influence  which  Pericles 
maintained  so  long  over  the  Athenians;  and  Pericles  was  as 
far  removed  from  the  demagogue  type  as  was  Alexander  the 
Great. 

Because  he  was  pure,  because  he  was  patriotic,  because  he 
was  wise,  strong  and  true,  the  democracy  of  Athens  supported 
the  great  man  who  enriched  history  with  the  "Age  of  Pericles." 

The  money  system  of  Athens  was  established  by  Solon.  - 
The  coins  were  the  drachma,  worth  about  fifteen  cents  in  our 
money;  the  mma,  one  hundred  times  as  much,  or  $15.00,  and 
the  talent,  $900.    The  obolvs  was  worth  about  two  and  one- 
half  cents. 

According  to  the  German  scholar,  Boeckh,  the  purchasing 
power  of  Grecian  money,  in  the  ancient  times,  was  three  times 
greater  than  it  is  now.  Others  contend  that  it  was  ten  times 
greater. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


69 


Both  gold  and  silver  were  coined. — the  ratio  varying  from 
ten  to  one  to  fourteen  to  one.  according  to  the  difference  in 
time  and  place. 

In  Dr.  J.  P.  Mahaff's  "Survey  of  Grecian  Civilization."  we 
find  a  statement  which  seems  to  show  that  in  addition  to  gold 
and  silver  coin,  there  was  a  species  of  flat  money  used. 
•   Says  the  learned  Dr.  Mahafty: 

"The  practice  of  the  Phoenicians  was  to  seal  up  small  bags 
professing  to  have  within  them  a  certain  sum.  which  was 
stamped  on  the  outside  with  the  seal  of  the  State.  Though  it 
was  notorious  that  the  coin  was  not  there,  such  a  bag.  so  long 
as  it  carried  the  seal  guaranteeing  its  value  in  exchange,  passed 
as  actual  money." 

Hence,  it  appears  that  the  Greeks  and  Phoenicians  used  a 
currency  based  upon  government  fiat.  The  credit  system  was 
in  its  infancy  at  Athens,  and.  therefore,  they  knew  nothing 
of  financial  panics.  There  were  no  booms  and  no  crashes,  no 
bulls  and  no  bears,  no  shearers  and  no  lambs,  no  flotation  of 
watered  stocks  and  no  organization  of  thievery  such  as  we  see 
in  our  Stock  Exchanges. 

The  indorser  was  bound  for  a  year,  and  the  laws  for  the 
collection  of  debts  were  severe.  The  rich  paid  practically  all 
the  taxes,  but  the  State  gave  ample  protection  to  their  business 
and  their  property.  There  were  no  banks  which  put  their 
notes  in  circulation  and  grew  rich  off  the  usurpation  of  a 
governmental  function.  Money  lenders  were  plentiful,  but  the 
State  alone  supplied  the  circulating  medium.  The  rate  of 
interest  was.  usually,  one  per  cent  a  month,  but  there  was  no 
legal  restriction.  Sometimes  the  rate  rose  to  thirty-six  per 
centum. 

Imprisonment  for  debt  was  forbidden.  Solon's  Code  put  an 
end  to  that  abuse  five  hundred  years  before  Christ. 

Athens  excelled  in  manufactures,  yet  practised  free-trade. 
Xo  duties  exacted  at  the  ports  held  foreign  goods  at  bay  and 
compelled  Athenians  to  pay  extortionate  prices  for  home- 
made products. 

In  the  domestic  market,  the  retail  trade  was  open  to  all. 

The  average  value  of  land  was  S30  per  acre,  and  the  holdings 
were  small.  An  estate  of  360  acres  was  considered  enormous. 
The  patrimony  of  the  great  Alcibiades  was  only  70  acres. 

I  was  present  at  a  meeting  of  congressmen  in  "Washington 
(1892)  when  a  land-owner  from  Missouri  referred  boastingly 
to  his  big  farm  of  1.400  acres,  and  I  recall  the  smile  of  good- 
humored  derision  with  which  a  Dakota  member  expressed  the 
wish  that  his  State  could  be  cut  up  into  little  strips  like  that. 
Dakota  farms  often  contain  40.000  acres.    So  greatly  do  dif- 


70  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

ferences  of  locality  alter  standards  of  magnitude !  A  French 
farmer  of  today  would  consider  himself  a  nabob  were  he  pos- 
sessed of  an  estate  like  that  of  Alcibiades,  whereas  in  Missouri 
it  would  be  considered  a  bagtatelle  and,  further  toward  the 
North-west,  a  joke. 

Houses  were  built  in  Athens  for  $45.  A  fine  dwelling  might 
cost  $1,800.   The  average  home  could  be  purchased  for  $1,000. 

Slaves  sold  at  prices  ranging  from  $7  to  $30,  according  to 
age,  health  and  skill.  Almost  all  of  the  free  citizens  owned 
slaves,  the  number  owned  by  each  ranging  from  one  to  fifty. 

The  ordinary  horse  could  be  had  for  $45,  but  a  well-trained 
saddle-horse,  or  carriage-horse  sold  for  $180.  The  price  of  a 
pair  of  mules  ranged  from  $80  to  $120. 

It  was  necessary  for  Athens  to  import  bread-stuffs,  her  own 
production  being  insufficient  for  her  support.  To  prevent  fore- 
stalling and  monopoly,  severe  laws  were  adopted.  The  quan- 
tity which  a  dealer  might  purchase  was  limited,  and  the  re- 
tailer Avas  restricted  to  a  profit  of  less  than  two  cents  on  the 
bushel. 

At  the  time  of  Solon,  a  bushel  of  wheat  was  worth  ten  cents ; 
the  price  gradually  rose,  until  at  the  time  of  Demosthenes,  it 
was  fifty  cents. 

Wine  was  an  article  of  food  at  Athens  and  it  was  cheap. 
The  best  vintage  of  Attica  could  be!  had  for  two  cents  a  quart. 
A  fairly  good  wine  could  be  bought  for  one  cent  a  quart.  The 
Chian  wine,  however,  cost  forty-five  cents  per  quart. 

The  cost  of  living  was  low.  With  pure  wine  at  half-a-cent 
the  pint,  and  wheat  at  twenty-five  to  fifty  cents  the  bushel, 
the  citizen  could  support  life  for  a  mere  trifle,  if  he  chose  to 
confine  himself  to  necessary  food. 

Thus  the  slave  in  Terence  buys  his  old  master  a  meal  for 
two  and  a  half  cents.  When  a  guardian  charged  his  three 
wards  about  twenty-five  cents  for  a  day's  support,  his  extrava- 
gance was  denounced  in  Court ! 

Socrates  maintained  his  family  at  a  yearly  expense  of  $75, 
but  he  lived  meanly.  (Our  sympathies  have  ever  been  with 
Xanthippe ! ) 

Demosthenes,  the  orator,  living  in  his  own  house,  paid  $105 
for  the  board  of  himself,  his  sister  and  his  mother. 

There  were  so  many  slaves  that  the  manual  labor  of  the  free 
men  commanded  a  sorry  wage.  Ten  cents  per  day  about  the 
average. 

Common  soldiers,  in  the  infantry,  received  thirty  cents  daily 
to  cover  pay  and  rations;  officers  below  the  grade  of  general 
got  sixty  cents ;  and  glory  was  the  passion  which  ruled  Athens, 
not  love  of  money.   The  privates  who  immortalized  the  fields 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


71 


of  Marathon  and  Plataea  fought  practically  without  pay.  The 
generals, — Miltiades,  Themistocles,  Cimon — did  the  same 
thing. 

Actors  in  the  theatres,  however,  could  coin  popularity  into 
fortunes.  For  a  two-day  engagement,  one  of  these  was  paid 
$900.  This  sum  is  said  to  have  been  the  highest  ever  paid  in 
Greece. 

The  Athenians  governed  themselves,  in  the  literal  sense  of 
the  word.  They  met  in  town  meetings,  debated  public  meas- 
ures, voted  for  or  against  proposed  legislation,  and  sanctioned 
or  condemned  public  policies. 

To  encourage  the  citizen  to  attend  the  affairs  of  Government 
in  person,  seven  and  a  half  cents  per  diem  was  fixed  as  the 
compensation  for  attending  the  public  assemblage.  Historians 
assert  that  eight  thousand  Athenians  constantly  came  to  the 
meetings,  and  that  each  sovereign  assemblage  cost  the  State 
$600.  There  were  forty  regular  meetings  a  year,  and,  there- 
fore, the  whole  expense  of  legislation  was  $2i,000  per  year. 

This  modest  little  outlay  is  an  agreeable  contrast  to  the 
annual  cost  of  one  of  our  State  Legislatures,  and  the  yearly 
expense  of  one  of  our  big  cities. 

The  members  of  the  Athenian  Senate  were  paid  fifteen  cents 
per  day.  In  Athens,  nearly  one-third  of  the  free  citizens  sat 
daily  as  judges.  Acting  in  this  judicial  capacity,  they  were 
paid  seven  and  a  half  cents  each.  The  entire  cost  of  the 
judiciary  of  the  State  was  $135,000  per  annum. 

The  ten  public  orators,  advocates  and  lawyers  employed  by 
the  people  were  paid  fifteen  cents  per  clay  for  each  day  of 
service.  No  citizen  could  draw  pay  for  more  than  one  kind 
of  service  on  the  same  day. 

In  Athens,  the  State  took  care  of  the  helpless  poor  and  aged. 
The  children  of  those  who  fell  in  battle  were  supported  and 
educated  at  public  expense.  Those  who  were  crippled  in  war 
were  pensioned. 

Incredible  as  it  may  seem,  Solon  included  among  his  reforms 
the  principles  which  in  our  times  are  embodied  in  the  Initia- 
tive, the  Referendum  and  the  Recall. 

The  great  Athenian  lawgiver  vested  in  the  Council  of  State 
the  power  to  propose  legislation.  As  constituted  by  Solon, 
this  body  was  composed  of  four  hundred  delegates,  and  the 
lowest  order  of  citizens  in  Athens  had  the  right  to  choose 
one  hundred  of  these. 

Laws  proposed  by  the  Council  of  State  were  referred  back 
to  a  general  assembly  of  all  the  people.  In  this,  the  lower 
orders  out-numbered  the  upper  classes,  and,  therefore,  it  is  a 
literal  fact  that  the  common  people  of  Athens  controlled  leg- 


72 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


islation.  Not  only  was  this  so,  but  the  judicial  decisions,  even 
of  the  highest  courts,  were  subject  to  review  in  the  popular 
assembly.  If  rulings  were  made  by  corrupt,  ignorant  and 
prejudiced  judges,  which  shocked  the  common  sense  of  the 
Athenian  public,  such  rulings  were  reviewed  by  the  plain  peo- 
ple and  annulled. 

In  our  own  day  and  country,  we  see  the  high-headed 
oligarchy  of  Federal  Judges  setting  aside  Acts  of  State  Leg- 
islatures and  Acts  of  Congress, — doing  so  without  authority  of 
law,  and  doing  so  in  contempt  of  the  rights  of  a  helpless 
people.  No  such  anomaly  was  possible  in  Athens.  The 
Judges,  like  all  other  officers  of  State,  were  directly  accountable 
to  the  general  assembly,  and  no  decision  of  a  Court  could 
stand  if  the  people  disapproved. 

In  Aristotle's  great  work  on  "Government,"  it  is  stated: 

"Solon  seems  not  to  have  altered  the  established  form  of 
government,  either  with  respect  to  the  Senate  or  the  mode  of 
electing  magistrates,  but  to  have  raised  the  people  to  great 
consideration  in  the  State,  by  allotting  the  supreme  judicial 
department  to  them." 

In  our  own  times,  a  proposal  to  give  to  the  American  people 
the  supreme  judicial  power  would  be  treated  as  the  product 
of  a  diseased  intellect. 

Aristotle  further  says: 

"He  (Solon)  thought  it  indeed  most  necessary  to  entrust  the 
people  with  the  choice  of  their  magistrates,  and  the  power  of 
calling  them  to  account,  for  without  that  they  would  have  been 
slaves,  etc." 

That  the  Athenians  exercised  this  power  without  favor  and 
with  extreme  energy,  is  proven  by  the  case  of  Miltiades.  All 
the  glory  with  which  the  victory  of  Marathon  covered  him, 
could  not  save  him  from  "the  recall,"  when  he  went  wrong 
on  the  Paros  expedition.  He  was  dragged  before  the  popular 
assembly,  tried  like  any  other  offender,  dismissed  from  his 
military  command,  and  fined  nearly  $63,000. 

Other  instances  in  which  the  great  men  of  Athens,  becoming 
unfaithful  or  running  counter  to  the  popular  will,  were  hurled 
from  power  and  banished  are  to  be  found  in  the  cases  of 
Themistocles,  Cimon,  Aristides,  Phocion,  and  Alcibiades. 
Phidias,  the  unequaled  sculptor,  died  in  prison— for  he  had 
dared  to  offend  his  countrymen  by  the  impiety  of  his  monu- 
mental work.  Aristotle,  the  preceptor  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
escaped  sentence  of  death  by  exile,  for  he  had  been  too  much 
of  a  courtier  and  not  enough  of  a  patriot. 

The  financial  condition  of  Athens  had  needed  reform,  and 
Solon  had  reformed  it.   The  evil  was  that  the  many  were  m 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


73 


debt  to  the  few,  and  that  the  amount  of  mone}^  in  circulation 
was  so  small  that  it  was  easily  controlled  by  the  capitalists. 

Solon's  remedy  was,  in  the  language  of  historians,  to  cheapen 
the  currency,  What  he  did  was  to  expand  the  volume.  He 
made  more  money.  And  more  money  meant  a  currency  which 
was  easier  to  get.  The  poor  man,  needing  money,  and  going 
into  the  market  to  buy  it,  with  his  labor  or  his  produce,  found 
that  he  did  not  have  to  give  as  much  of  his  labor  or  his  produce 
for  the  same  amount  of  money  as  he  had  had  to  do  when  the 
supply  of  money  was  smaller.  Consequently,  more  money 
meant  easier  money,  better  times,  debts  less  hard  to  pay,  fixed 
charges  less  difficult  to  meet.  The  more  money  there  is  floating 
around,  the  better  chance  for  everybody  to  get  some  of  it. 
That  ought  to  be  plain  enough,  even  to  a  modern  daily-paper 
editor ;  it  was  very  plain  indeed  to  Solon,  the  wisest  of  all  the 
wise  men  of  Greece. 

Such  was  the  economic  and  political  system  of  Athens.  Such 
was  the  tree  which  budded  and  blossomed  into  the  most  won- 
derful and  magnificent  and  elegant  civilization  that  the  world 
has  ever  known.  A  democracy  of  less  than  half  a  million 
souls!  A  territory  not  so  large  as  some  American  Counties! 
Yet  against  this  small  democracy,  the  huge  empire  of  Persia 
dashed  itself  in  vain;  and  it  could  only  be  weakened  and  sub- 
verted ''When  Greek  met  Greek"  in  the  tug  of  war,  and  the 
unconquerable  Hellenes  committed  the  most  gigantic  hari-kairi 
that  ever  saddened  the  pages  of  history. 

In  science,  art,  literature,  they  led  and  still  lead  the  world. 
Save  in  the  Orient,  their  architecture  has  never  been  rivaled. 
Not  even  in  the  Orient  was  it  surpassed.  Their  paintings  dis- 
appeared under  the  waves  of  barbarian  conquest,  but  we  know 
that  the  ancients  considered  the  brush  of  Apelles  as  much  of  a 
marvel  as  was  the  chisel  of  Praxiteles;  and  we  know  that 
modern  art  is  too  inferior  to  Greek  sculpture  to  admit  of  envy. 

Orators  yet  vainly  strive  to  found  themselves  on  Pericles — 
to  Demosthenes  is  paid  the  tribute  of  mental  vassals  to  the 
unapproachable  king.  Poets  and  historians  saturate  their 
minds  with  Sophocles,  Aeschylus  and  Euripides,  with  Homer 
and  Thucydides,  hoping  to  assimilate  the  form  and  the  spirit 
of  classic  antiquity, — no  one  dreams  of  reaching  its  perfection. 

Consider  what  our  own  illustrious  Emerson  says  of  one  of 
the  Athenian  philosophers: 

"Among  secular  books,  Plato  only  is  entied  to  Omar's  fanatical 
compliment  to  the  Koran,  when  he  said,  'Burn  the  libraries;  for 
their  value  is  in  this  book.'  These  sentences  contain  the  culture  of 
nations;  these  are  the  corner-stone  of  schools;  these  are  the  foun- 
tain-head of  literatures.    A  discipline  it  is  in  logic,  arithmetic,  taste, 


74 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


symmetry,  poetry,  language,  rhetoric,  orthology,  morals  or  practi- 
cal wisdom.  There  was  never  such  a  range  of  speculation.  Out  of 
Plato  come  all  things  that  are  still  written  and  debated  among  men 
of  thought.  *  *  *  The  Bible  of  the  learned  for  2200  years.  *  *  * 
Neither  Saxon  nor  Roman  have  availed  to  add  one  idea  to  his  cate- 
gories. No  wife,  no  children  had  he,  and  the  thinkers  of  all  civ- 
ilized nations  are  his  posterity  and  are  tinged  with  his  mind." 

Was  ever  so  noble  a  tribute  paid  to  mental  grandeur? 

What  system  of  education  aided  the  Grecian  intellect  to 
expand,  enrich  itself,  and  bear  fruit? 

Did  the  little  boys  and  girls  of  Athens  stagger  under  the 
armsf ul  of  text-books  which  tax  the  strength  of  our  children  ? 
Were  they  given  the  artificial,  impractical  and  superficial 
training  customary  to  our  academies?  Were  they  moulded 
into  monotonous  sameness,  and  lifted  aAvay  from  common-sense 
proficiency  as  is  so  often  the  case  with  our  colleges?  Or  did 
they  have  a  method  of  their  own  which  encouraged  individ- 
uality, evolved  the  innate  strength  of  each  student,  and  pro- 
duced men  of  all-round,  practical  capacity? 

Listen  to  Macaulay: 

"There  seems  to  be,  on  the  contrary,  every  reason  to  believe 
that  in  general  intelligence  the  Athenian  populace  far  surpassed  the 
lower  orders  of  any  community  that  has  ever  existed.  It  must  be 
considered  that  to  be  a  citizen  was  to  be  a  legislator, — a  soldier — a 
judge — one  upon  whose  voice  might  depend  the  fate  of  the 
wealthiest  tributary  state,  of  the  most  eminent  public  man.  The 
lowest  offices,  both  of  agriculture  and  of  trade,  were  in  common 
performed  by  slaves.  The  commonwealth  supplied  its  means  of 
amusement.  Books  were,  indeed,  few,  but  they  were  excellent,  and 
they  were  accurately  known.  It  is  not  by  turning  over  libraries, 
but  by  repeatedly  perusing  and  intently  contemplating  a  few  great 
models,  that  the  mind  is  best  disciplined.  A  man  of  letters  must 
now  read  much  that  he  soon  forgets  and  much  from  which  he  learns 
nothing  worthy  to  be  remembered.  The  best  works  employ,  in 
general,  but  a  small  portion  of  his  time.  Demosthenes  is  said  to 
have  transcribed,  six  times,  the  history  of  Thucydides.  If  he  had 
been  a  young  politician  of  the  present  age,  he  might  in  the  same 
space  of  time  have  skimmed  innumerable  newspapers  and  pam- 
phlets. I  do  not  condemn  that  desultory  mode  of  study  which  the 
state  of  things  in  our  day  renders  a  matter  of  necessity.  But  1 
may  be  allowed  to  doubt  whether  the  changes  on  which  the  admirers 
of  modern  instructions  delight  to  dwell  have  improved  our  condition 
as  much  in  reality  as  in  appearance.  Rumford,  it  is  said,  proposed 
to  the  Elector  of  Bavaria  a  scheme  for  feeding  his  soldiers  at  a 
much  cheaper  rate  than  formerly.  His  plan  was  simply  to  compel 
them  to  masticate  their  food  thoroughly.  A  small  quantity  thus 
eaten  would,  according  to  that  famous  projector,  afford  more  sus- 
tenance than  a  large  meal  hastily  devoured.  I  do  not  know  how 
Rumford's  proposition  was  received;  but  to  the  mind,  I  believe,  it 
will  be  found  more  nutritious  to  digest  a  page  than  to  devour  a 
volume. 

"Books,  however,  were  the  least  part  of  the  education  of  an 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  75 


Athenian  citizen.  Let  us,  for  a  moment,  transport  ourselves,  in 
thought,  to  that  glorious  city.  Let  us  imagine  that  we  are  entering 
its  gates,  in  the  time  of  is  power  and  glory.  A  crowd  is  assembled 
round  a  portico.  All  are  gazing  with  delight  at  the  entablature,  for 
Phidias  is  putting  up  the  frieze.  We  turn  into  another  street;  a 
rhapsodist  is  reciting  there;  men,  women,  children,  are  thronging 
round  him;  the  tears  are  running  down  their  cheeks;  their  eyes 
fixed;  their  very  breath  is  still;  for  he  is  telling  how  Priam  fell  at 
the  feet  of  Achilles,  and  kissed  those  hands, — the  terrible, — the 
murderous, — which  had  slain  so  many  of  his  sons.  We  enter  the 
public  place;  there  is  a  ring  of  youths,  all  leaning  forward,  with 
sparkling  eyes,  and  gestures  of  expectation.  Socrates  is  pitted 
against  the  famous  Atheist,  from  Ionia,  and  has  just  brought  him' 
to  a  contradiction  in  terms. .  But  we  are  interrupted.  The  herald 
is  crying — 'Room  for  the  Yrytanes.'  The  general  assembly  is  to 
meet.  The  people  are  swarming  in  on  every  side.  Proclamation  is 
made — 'Who  wishes  to  speak.'  There  is  a  shout,  and  a  slapping  of 
hands:  Pericles  is  mounting  the  stand.  Then  for  a  play  of 
Sophocles;  and  away  to  sup  with  Aspasia.  I  know  of  no  modern 
university  which  has  so  excellent  a  system  of  education." 

Note: — Macaulay  speaks  of  Phidias  as  "putting  up  the  frieze." 
The  reference  was  doubtless  to  the  Parthenon, — certainly  to  one  of 
the  magnificent  public  buildings.  This  was  a  curious  mistake  in 
Macaulay.  Phidias  did  no  actual  building,  and  therefore,  he  could 
never  have  been  "putting  up  the  frieze"  on  the  Parthenon,  or  any 
other  edifice. 

The  Parthenon  was  built  by  Callicrates  and  Intinus.  Phidias 
executed  for  it  the  collossal  statue  of  Minerva,  (in  ivory  and  gold) 
which  was  placed  inside  the  temple.  He  was  an  artist  who  worked 
mainly  in  hard-wood,  ivory,  gold  and  bronze;  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  he  used  marble,  save  in  the  finish  of  hard-wood 
sculptures. 

It  is  the  fashion,  nowadays,  to  say  that  woman,  in  the  ancient 
world,  was  a  mere  chattel,  a  helpless  slave.  The  tendency  of 
modern  teaching  is  to  make  us  believe  that  under  paganism, 
the  wife  was  not  truly  loved,  and  that  the  Home  was  not  truly 
happy. 

We  are  asked  to  believe  that  during  the  thousands  of  years 
which  God  in  His  infinite  wisdom  allotted  to  the  reign  of 
paganism,  there  was  no  real  nobility  of  character,  no  lofty 
ideals  of  private  and  public  life,  no  proper  conception  of  the 
beauty  and  strength  of  womanly  character,  no  yearning  for 
and  appreciation  of  the  sweetness  and  holiness  of  Home. 

This  demand  upon  our  credulity  is  too  great;  we  simply 
cannot  believe  anything  of  the  kind.  Human  nature  is  always 
the  same,  and  there  must  always  have  been  loftier  types  of 
men  and  of  women  who  lived  noble  lives,  and  whose  homes 
were  the  abode  of  the  Virtues  which  make  for  human  bliss. 

The  literature  of  a  people  reflects  the  manners,  the  customs, 


76  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

the  characters,  the  ideals  of  that  people ;  and  to  the  Literature 
of  Greece  we  confidently  appeal. 

First  of  all,  Monoganry  was  the  general  system  in  Greece. 
This  fact,  of  itself,  is  of  vast  importance.  According  to  mod- 
ern ideas,  there  can  be  no  Home  where  Polygamy  prevails. 
The  Oriental,  then  as  now,  had  his  Harem,  his  plurality  of 
wives,  his  ennuchs  to  watch  and  guard  his  women — but  he  had 
no  Home.  The  Greek  chose  his  one  woman,  made  her  his 
wife,  and  established  her  as  mistress  of  his  household. 

Search  the  whole  field  of  European  poesy,  and  you  will  look 
in  vain  for  a  more  beautiful  picture  of  conjugal  love  than 
Homer  gives  in  the  mutual  tenderness  of  Hector  and  Andro- 
mache. All  the  dreary  length  of  the  ten  years  of  the  Siege  of 
Troy  and  the  other  years  of  voyaging  were  not  too  great  a 
strain  upon  the  wifely  devotion  and  constancy  of  Penelope, 
waiting  for  the  return  of  her  lord.  When  the  wife  of  the 
dying  painter,  Millais,  gives  him  a  final  kiss,  knowing  that  it 
will  cost  her  life,  all  the  world  is  touched  by  the  conjugal 
passion  and  sacrifice:  but  thousands  of  years  ago,  the  heroic 
Alcestis  voluntarily  died  that  her  husband  might  live. 

Indeed,  what  was  the  whole  Trojan  War  but  the  uprising 
of  Greece  to  punish  the  violation  of  one  man's  home? 

It  is  true  that  among  the  Greeks  women  are  considered 
inferior  to  men, — but  that  idea  still  prevails.  You  find  it 
everywhere.  Occident  and  Orient,  Christianity  and  heathen- 
ism, are  still  in  accord  as  to  that.  In  law,  in  politics,  in 
business,  in  social  life,  the  man  is  cock  of  the  walk.  Even  the 
kitchen  and  the  millinery  department  is  dominated  by  hateful 
man.  It  should  not  be  so,  perhaps,  but  it  is  so,  and  always 
has  been. 

With  a  loud,  raucous  voice,  modern  historians  complain 
that  among  the  Greeks,  the  suitor  gave  a  sum  of  money  to  the 
father  of  his  bride.  This  was  mercenary  and  degrading,  but 
what  does  it  prove  ?  We  must  not  contend  that  the  father  sold 
his  daughter.  That  would  never  do.  If  we  once  adopt  logic 
of  that  kind,  we  would  be  driven  to  admit  that,  with  us,  rich 
fathers  hire  men  to  marry  their  daughters;  for  it  is  a  well- 
known  fact  that  foreigners  of  distinction  do  not  wed  wealthy 
American  girls  unless  they  are  paid  to  do  it. 

The  foreigners  tell  us,  truly,  that  it  is  the  custom  of  the 
country  where  they  live  for  the  father  of  the  bride  to  give  the 
bride  a  dot  to  marry  her  off.  No  dot,  no  husband.  The  richer 
the  dot,  the  better  the  marriage.  That  is  the  custom  in  France, 
particularly. 

Now,  consider :  was  it  worse  for  the  young  Greek  to  buy  his 
sweetheart  from  her  father,  than  it  is  for  the  French  father 
to  buy  a  husband  for  his  daughter? 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  77 

Under  the  Grecian  system,  it  was  the  suitor  who  gave  proof 
of  his  passion  for  the  girl :  under  the  French  system,  it  is  the 
girl  who  must  offer  the  bribe  to  get  the  husband.  Greece  was 
Pagan:  France  is  Catholic: — which  system  appeals  to  you  as 
the  better? 

For  our  part,  we  say,  "Give  us  a  custom  which  compels  the 
suitor  to  proye  iris  desire  for  the  woman,  rather  than  the 
obscene  practice  which  compels  the  girl,  or  her  father,  to  offer 
a  dot  to  get  a  husband."  (At  a  later  period,  the  father  began 
to  pay  the  suitor, — as  in  France.) 

The  Grecian  wife  gloried  in  the  seclusion  of  her  Home. 
Her  existence  was  merged  in  that  of  her  husband.  In  public, 
she  was  seldom  seen.  No  male  visitor  could  gain  access  to  her, 
unless  her  husband  were  present.  She  was  mistress  of  the 
household.  She  managed  the  slayes.  It  was  she  who  acted 
as  overseer  in  the  domestic  economics.  She  assigned  the 
various  tasks,  disbursed  the  family  income,  and  kept  every- 
thing in  order.  As  public  life  demanded  and  absorbed  the 
husband,  so  private  life  demanded  and  absorbed  the  wife. 

But  the  Grecian  woman  was  something  more  than  a  house- 
keeper. If  we  may  rely  upon  the  picture  of  married  life,  as 
drawn  by  Plutarch,  the  wife  was  the  equal  and  the  companion 
of  her  husband.  Reciprocal  duties  were  acknowledged,  and 
the  ideal  of  Home  life,  as  there  sketched,  is  not  unworthy 
the  best  models  of  today. 

Aristotle  can  be  quoted  to  the  same  purport.  No  wifely 
character  has  been  more  beautifully  drawn  than  that  which  he 
sketches  in  the  first  book  of  Economics.  It  is  Aristotle  who, 
contrasting  his  countrymen  with  the  barbarians,  declared  that 
the  Greeks  did  not,  like  other  nations,  treat  their  wives  as 
slaves,  but  as  helpmates  and  companions. 

It  would  be  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  relate  the  thrilling 
story  of  Helenic  conquest, — how  the  light  of  Athens  blazed 
along  the  Mediterranean,  all  the  way  to  the  pillars  of  Hercules : 
how  it  shone  over  the  Dardanelles,  and  bathed  the  Islands  of 
the  Adriatic  and  Aegean  Seas.  Of  the  dependencies  which 
looked  to  Athens  for  control  and  which  poured  tribute  into 
her  industry,  there  is  no  need  to  speak.  These  colonies,  these 
distant  possessions  and  dependencies,  destroyed  the  integrity 
of  her  national  life,  mis-directed  her  energies,  divided  her 
counsels,  dissipated  her  strength,  and  paved  the  way  for 
her  ruin. 

That  the  mighty  democracy  of  Athens  was  lured  from  its 
first  great  purpose,  and  made  the  fatal  mistake  which  so  many 
monarchies,  aristocracies  and  republics  have  made,  is  a  mourn- 
ful fact;  but  of  all  the  states  that  have  risen,  flourished  and 


78 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


fallen,  none  has  left  so  splendid  a  legacy  to  mankind.  Even 
from  her  tomb  comes  the  inspiration  which  is  worth  more  to 
the  world  than  any  other  heritage  which  it  takes  from  the 
pagan  past.  To  her  standards,  modern  ambition  aspires,  and 
to  her  thought,  modern  intellect  is  at  once  student  and  disciple. 
Weigh  the  impassioned  testimony  of  Macaulay: 

"If  we  consider  merely  the  subtlety  of  disquisition,  the  force  of 
imagination,  the  perfect  energy  and  elegance  of  expression,  which 
characterize  the  great  works  of  Athenian  genius,  we  must  pro- 
nounce them  intrinsically  most  valuable;  but  what  shall  we  say 
when  we  reflect  that  from  hence  have  sprung,  directly  or  indirectly, 
all  the  noblest  creations  of  the  human  intellect;  that  from  hence 
were  the  vast  accomplishments  and  the  brilliant  fancy  of  Cisero,  the 
withering  fire  of  Juneval;  the  plastic  imagination  of  Dante;  the 
humor  of  Cervantes;  the  comprehension  of  Bacon;  the  wit  of  But- 
ler; the  supreme  and  universal  excellence  of  Shakespeare?  All  the 
triumphs  of  truth  and  genius  over  prejudice  and  power,  in  every 
country  and  in  every  age  have  been  the  triumphs  of  Athens. 
Wherever  a  few  great  minds  have  made  a  stand  against  violence 
and  fraud,  in  the  cause  of  liberty  and  reason,  there  has  been  her 
spirit  in  the  midst  of  them;  inspiring,  encouraging,  consoling; — by 
the  lonely  lamp  of  Erasmus;  by  the  restless  bed  of  Pascal;  in  the 
tribune  of  Mirabeau;  in  the  call  of  Galileo;  on  the  scaffold  of 
Sidney.  But  who  shall  estimate  her  influence  on  private  happiness? 
Who  shall  say  how  many  thousands  have  been  made  wiser,  happier, 
and  better,  by  those  pursuits  in  which  she  has  taught  mankind  to 
engage;  to  how  many  the  studies  which  took  their  rise  from  her 
have  been  wealth  in  poverty, — liberty  in  bondage — health  in  sick- 
ness,— society  in  solitude?  Her  power  is  indeed  manifested  at  the 
bar;  in  the  senate;  in  the  field  of  battle;  in  the  schools  of  phil- 
osophy. But  these  are  not  her  glory.  Wherever  literature  con- 
soles sorrow,  or  assuages  pain, — wherever  it  brings  gladness  to  eyes 
which  fail  with  wakefulness  and  tears,  and  ache  for  the  dark  house 
and  the  long  sleep, — there  is  exhibited,  in  its  noblest  form,  the 
immortal  influence  of  Athens. 

"The  dervish,  in  the  Arabian  tale,  did  not  hesitate  to  abandon 
to  his  comrade  the  camels  with  their  load  of  jewels  and  gold,  while 
he  retained  the  casket  of  that  mysterious  juice,  which  enabled  him 
,to  behold  at  one  glance  all  the  hidden  riches  of  the  universe. 
Surely  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say,  that  no  external  advantage  is  to 
be  compared  with  that  purification  of  the  intellectual  eye,  which 
gives  us  to  contemplate  the  infinite  wealth  of  the  mental  world;  all 
the  hoarded  treasures  of  the  primeval  dynasties,  all  the  shapeless 
ore  of  its  yet  unexplored  mines.  This  is  the  gift  of  Athens  to  man. 
Her  freedom  and  her  power  have  for  more  than  twenty  centuries 
been  annihilated;  her  people  nave  degenerated  into  timid  slaves;  her 
language  into  a  barbarian  jargon;  her  temples  have  been  given  up 
to  the  successive  depredations  of  Romans,  Turks,  and  Scotchman; 
but  her  intellectual  empire  is  imperishable.  And,  when  those  who 
have  rivalled  her  greatness  shall  have  shared  her  fate:  when  civil- 
ization and  knowledge  shall  have  fixed  their  abode  in  distant  con- 
tinents; when  the  sceptre  shall  have  passed  away  from  England; 
when,  perhaps,  travellers  from  distant  regions  shall  in  vain  labor 
to  decipher  on  some  mouldering  pedestal  the  name  of  our  proudest 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


79 


chief;  shall  hear  savage  hymns  chanted  to  some  misshapen  idol 
over  the  ruined  dome  of  our  proudest  temple:  and  shall  see  a  single 
naked  fisherman  wash  his  nets  in  the  river  of  the  ten  thousand 
masts, — her  influence  and  her  glory  will  still  survive, — fresh  in 
eternal  youth,  exempt  from  mutability  and  decay,  immortal  as  the 
intellectual  principle  from  which  they  derived  their  origin,  and 
over  which  they  exercise  their  control." 

One  can  imagine  a  Greek  of  Athens  soliloquizing  in  this 
strain  : 

"The  world  will  never  forget  me :  I  will  not  wholly  die : 
in  what  I  conceived  and  wrought  I  shall  live  forever.  Of 
immortality  of  the  soul  I  know  nothing.  Hope  yearns,  but 
Reason  benumbs  the  hands.    After  all.  I  do  not  know. 

"Even  should  I  arise  from  the  dead  to  live  again,  in  another 
world,  what  would  I  be.  there :  what  would  I  do.  there  ?  Unless 
I  could  be  much  the  same  as  here. — the  same  to  feel  and  hope 
and  love  and  work. — I  would  not  care  for  it.  The  spirit  which 
would  be  satisfied  with  perpetual  rest,  an  eternity  of  fruitless 
bliss,  would  not  be  mine.  Even  if  it  were  me. — and  Paradise 
meant  idleness  and  perpetual  peace  and  joy. — were  it  not 
better  to  choose  that  kind  of  immortality  which  is  certain  to 
be  mine? 

"In  my  laws.  arts,  science,  philosophy,  social  and  political 
and  literary  models.  I  will  survive  the  wreck  of  empires. 
Myriads  of  boys  and  girls,  men  and  women,  will  drink  at 
my  fountain,  to  become  pure  and  strong.  As  long  as  time 
shall  last,  my  work  will  multiply  itself  in  the  efforts  of  others; 
thus  my  immortality  will  be  the  uplifting  of  all  the  genera- 
tions that  follow  me.  rather  than  a  selfish  quietude  in  some 
beatific  but  unprogressive  Paradise.  Wherever  the  orator 
shall  speak  with  tongue  of  flame.  I  shall  be  heard:  wherever 
the  sculptor  shall  chisel  beauty  from  senseless  stone.  I  shall 
be  seen:  wherever  warriors  strike  for  liberty,  poets  embody 
truth  and  majesty  in  verse,  statesmen  evolve  civilizations,  and 
scholars  and  philosophers  and  scientists  conquer  new  worlds, 
I  shall  be  known  and  honored. — deathless  in  the  divinity  of 
inspired  purpose  and  work. 

"I  alone  have  reared  an  altar  to  Mercy.  I  alone  have  based 
civil  and  religious  institutions  on  the  Brotherhood  of  Man. 
I  alone  have  endeavored  to  poetize  the  loveliness  and  the 
grandeur  of  Nature :  no  one  else  created  dryads  for  murmuring 
groves  and  naiads  for  gurgling  streams:  no  one  else  dreamed 
of  making  rural  life  Arcadian,  and  elevating  the  harvest  into 
the  enchanted  regions  of  poesy  and  religion.  I  alone  have 
practiced  the  splendid  creed  that  no  head  is  so  high  that  it 
shall  not  bow  to  law,  and  no  fellow-man  so  low  that  he  shall 
not  be  the  object  of  my  care  and  protection. 


80  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


"The  career  open  to  talent,  the  tools  to  him  that  can  use  them 
— lo!  I  stamped  that  motto  indelibly  upon  the  Golden  Age: 
three  thousand  years  hence,  a  Corsican  boy,  grown  great,  shall 
re-stamp  it  upon  a  forgetting  world. 

"Immortal?  Yea,  I  am  immortal.  I  shall  live,  not  one 
idle,  blissful  unfruitful  life  in  the  eternity  of  the  shades;  but 
I  shall  live  lustily,  joyously,  fruitfully,  usefully,  sublimely  in 
all  the  years  that  are  to  come  to  this  earth, — side  by  side  with 
scholars  as  their  shining  faces  tend  upward  to  the  higher  sum  - 
mits  of  Thought,  soul  to  soul  with  patriot  statesmen  who  give 
their  days  and  nights  to  the  noble  problem  of  just  laws,  healthy 
conditions,  happy  homes!" 


Edgar  A.  Poe. 


In  Horace  Greely's  "Recollections  of  a  Bust  Life."  lie  says: 
"  1  gushing  youth  once  wrote  me  to  this  effect : 
"  "Dear   Sir :    Among  your  literary  treasures,  you  have 
doubtless  preserved  several  autographs  of  our  country's  late 
lamented  poet.  Edgar  A.  Poe.    If  so.  and  you  can  spare  one, 
please  enclose  it  to  me.  and  receive  the  thanks  of  yours  truly  ' 
"I  promptly  responded,  as  follows : 

"  'Dear  Sir :  Among  my  literary  treasures,  there  happens 
to  be  exactly  one  autograph  of  our  country's  late  lamented 
poet.  Edgar  A.  Poe.  It  is  his  note  of  hand  for  fifty  dollars, 
with  my  endorsement  across  the  back.  It  cost  me  exactly 
850.75  (including  protest),  and  you  may  have  it  for  half  that 
amount.    Yours,  respectfully.' 

"That  autograph.  I  regret  to  say.  remains  on  my  hands,  and 
is  still  for  sale  at  first  cost,  despite  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the 
depreciation  of  our  currency." 

It  may  seem  a  little  cruel  to  "pull  the  record"  on  the  Poe 
enthusiasts  in  this  manner  at  the  very  time  when  they  are 
striving  so  mightily  to  create  a  mythical  Poe.  Nevertheless, 
we  think  it  important  that  we  should  know  our  great  men.  just 
as  they  were :  and  that  the  well-meant  efforts  of  those  who  al- 
low their  zeal  to  distort  the  facts  should  be  discouraged. 

Edgar  Poe  was  a  creative  genius  of  a  very  high  order.  As 
a  master-mind,  he  compels  admiration.  But  nature  denied 
him  the  traits  which  go  to  make  a  man.  Study  his  portraits, 
and  mark  the  painful  contrast  between  the  upper  part  of  the 
face  and  the  lower:  the  brow  is  grand,  the  eyes  luminous, 
spiritual,  beautiful :  but  the  mouth  and  the  chin  excite  a  pity- 
ing dislike.    They  are  not  only  weak,  but  unpleasant. 

There  have  been  few  lonlier  men  than  Poe.  He  had  no 
talent  whatever  for  mixed  company,  or  for  public  display- 
His  personal  acquaintance  was  not  extended,  and  he  made  few 
friends. 

Verily  nearly  all  of  the  women  who  knew  him.  loved  him  and 
deferred  to  him.  but  with  his  own  sex  he  was  no  favorite. 

He  was  always  miserably  poor,  had  no  turn  for  practical 
affairs,  was  compelled  to  borrow  and  was  never  able  to  repay. 
He  was  proud,  and  sensitive,  and  ambitious,  and  intensely  de- 
voted to  his  literary  work  and  ideals.  But  lack  of  recognition 
disheartened  him.  and  he  often  resorted  to  the  bottle.    His  was 


82 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


such  a  delicate  organism  that  one  drink  of  whiskey  put  the 
demon  in  him.  Under  the  influence  of  liquor,  he  was  unbear- 
able,— abusive,  truculent,  absurdly  arrogant  and  altogether 
odious. 

Sober,  he  was  a  perfect  gentleman;  drunk,  he  was  a  noisy 
brute.  But  the  amount  of  his  literary  work,  and  the  exquisite 
finish  of  the  greater  part  of  it,  prove  conclusively  that  he  was 
not  often  intoxicated. 

One  of  the  elements  of  manhood  which  he  did  not  possess 
was  courage.  Thomas  Dunn  English,  author  of  "Ben  Bolt,*' 
thrashed  Poe  on  the  streets  of  New  York;  Poe  sought  "satis- 
faction"  in  a  suit  for  damages  in  which  he  got  a  verdict  for  a 
small  sum. 

One  of  the  reasons  why  Edgar  Poe  could  not  rise  in  the  liter- 
ary world  of  his  own  time  was,  that  he  emptied  all  the  phials 
of  his  wrath  and  scorn  upon  the  inflated  mediocrities  who  were 
then  posing  as  the  American  Literati.  Under  his  withering 
criticism,  full  many  a  mushroom  reputation  perished ;  and 
even  the  great  Longfellow  was  made  to  appear  one  of  the  lesser 
lights  in  the  constellations  of  poesy. 

In  other  words,  Edgar  Poe  was  a  literary  Ishmael — and  he 
suffered  as  the  Ishmaelites  must. 

Yet  had  he  never  written  a  line  of  verse,  his  critical  essays 
would  have  entitled  him  to  a  niche  in  the  hall  of  fame.  He 
it  was  who  first  erected  a  standard  of  literary  excellence  in 
our  country ;  and  the  fact  that  his  ideal  was  so  pure  and  high 
has  been  an  immense  benefit,  not  only  to  us,  but  to  poets  and 
story-writers  throughout  the  European  world. 

In  one  of  the  recent  publications  concerning  Poe,  it  was 
stated  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  done  to  death  in 
Baltimore  by  ward-heelers  who  made  him  drunk,  voted  him 
all  over  the  city,  and  left  him  to  die  from  the  debauch.  Indeed, 
the  author  of  the  article  to  which  we  refer  said  there  was  no 
contemporaneous  evidence  of  the  fact  that  Poe  was  drunk  at 
all  at  the  time  of  his  collapse. 

Dr.  Snodgrass,  who  attended  the  poet  in  his  last  days,  wrote 
a  communication  to  a  temperance  paper,  some  years  ago,  which, 
in  this  connection,  is  convincing: 

"On  a  chilly  and  wet  November  evening  I  received  a  note 
stating  that  a  man  answering  to  the  name  of  Edgar  Allan  Poe, 
who  claimed  to  know  me,  was  at  a  drinking  saloon  in  Lombard 
street,  in  Baltimore,  in  a  state  of  deep  intoxication  and  great 
destitution.  I  repaired  immediately  to  the  spot.  It  was  an 
election  clay.  When  I  entered  the  bar-room  of  the  house,  I 
instantly  recognized  the  face  of  one  whom  I  had  often  seen 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


83 


and  knew  well,  although  it  wore  an  aspect  of  vacant  stupidity 
that  made  me  shudder. 

"The  intellectual  flash  of  his  eye  had  vanished,  or  rather 
had  been  quenched  in  the  bowl,  but  the  broad,  capacious  fore- 
head of  the  author  of  the  'Raven5  was  still  there,  with  width 
in  the  region  of  ideality  such  as  few  men  ever  possessed.  He 
was  so  utterly  stupefied  with  liquor  that  I  thought  it  best  not 
to  seek  recognition  or  conversation,  especially  as  he  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  crowd  of  gentlemen  actuated  by  idle  curiosity 
rather  than  sympathy. 

I  immediately  ordered  a  room  for  him.  where  he  could  be 
comfortable  until  I  got  word  to  his  relatives,  for  there  were 
several  in  Baltimore.  Just  at  that  moment  one  or  two  of  the 
persons  referred  to.  getting  information,  arrived  at  the  spot. 
They  declined  to  take  private  care  of  him.  for  the  reason  that 
he  had  been  very  abusive  and  ungrateful  on  all  occasions 
when  drunk,  and  advised  that  he  be  sent  to  a  hospital.  He 
was  accordingly  placed  in  a  coach,  and  conveyed  to  the  Wash- 
ington College  Hospital.  So  insensible  was  he  that  we  had  to 
carry  him  to  a  carriage  as  if  a  corpse.  The  muscles  of  articula- 
tion seemed  paralyzed  to  speechlessness,  and  mere  incoherent 
mutterings  were  all  that  were  heard. 

"He  died  in  the  hospital  after  some  three  or  four  days, 
during  which  time  he  enjoyed  only  occasional  and  fitful  >easons 
of  consciousness.  His  disease  was  mania  a  pot":  a  disease 
whose  finale  is  always  fearful  in  its  maniacal  manifestations. 
In  one  of  his  more  lucid  moments,  when  asked  by  the  physician 
whether  he  would  like  to  see  his  friends,  he  exclaimed: 
£Friend !  my  be^t  friend  would  be  he  who  would  take  a  pistol 
and  blow  my  brains  out.  and  thus  relieve  me  of  my  agony." 
These  were  among  his  last  words." 


Wit  and  Humor 


What  is  it  that  makes  a  saying  a  witticism  ?  In  other  words 
why  do  we  laugh? 

The  greatest  wits  have  striven  to  give  a  satisfactory  defini- 
tion of  wit,  and  no  one  has  ever  succeeded. 

Voltaire  says  that  Locke  had  the  most  solid,  methodical, 
acute  and  accurate  of  human  minds — and  here  is  Locke's 
definition  of  the  word: 

"Wit  lies  in  an  assemblage  of  ideas,  and  putting  them 
together  with  quickness  and  vivacity,  whenever  can  be  any 
resemblance  and  congruity,  whereby  to  make  up  pleasant  pic- 
tures and  agreeable  visions  of  fancy." 

That  definition  is  as  clear  as  the  noon-day  mud,  isn't  it  ? 

You  might  use  words  which  would  do  exactly  what  Locke's 
definition  requires,  and  nobody  would  see  a  joke  and  laugh. 

Locke  was  no  wit,  but  Voltaire  was.  Indeed,  he  was  the 
wittiest  of  men.  He  was  a  wit  all  the  way  from  a  conversa- 
tional jest  to  a  book- wit  which  makes  all  the  world  laugh  with 
him  then,  and  makes  it  laugh  now.  The  whole  of  "Candide" 
is  wit,  inextinguishable  and  immortal.  His  Philosophical  Dic- 
tionary is  the  vastest  wedding  of  Wit  and  Wisdom  that  human 
intellect  ever  achieved. 

Yet,  when  this  Prince  Imperial  of  Wits  undertakes  to  define 
what  wit  is,  he  breaks  down  as  woefully  as  does  the  sobersided 
Locke : 

aWhat  is  called  wit,  is  sometimes  a  new  comparison,  some- 
times a  subtle  allusion;  here,  it  is  the  abuse  of  a  word,  which 
is  presented  in  pne  sense  and  left  to  be  understood  in  another ; 
there,  a  delicate  relation  between  two  ideas  not  very  common. 
It  is  a  singular  metaphor;  it  is  the  discovery  of  something  in 
an  object  which  does  not  at  first  strike  the  observation,  but 
which  is  really  in  it;  it  is  the  art  either  of  bringing  together 
two  things  apparently  remote,  or  of  dividing  two  things  which 
seem  to  be  united,  or  of  opposing  them  to  each  other.  It  is 
that  of  expressing  only  one-half  of  what  you  think,  and  leaving 
the  other  to  be  guessed." 

Now,  it  must  be  evident  to  you  that  Voltaire  misses  the 
mark.  You  can  readily  see  that  you  could  use  words  that 
would  in  every  way  conform  to  his  definition  of  wit  and  yet 
not  say  anything  which  would  be  at  all  funny. 

Pope  and  Addison  both  tried  their  hands  at  the  word,  and 
the  failure  of  both  is  lamentable. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


85 


Addison  says  that  wit  is  an  assemblage  of  ideas  which,  to 
pleasure,  add  surprise. 

How  lame !  You  might  be  rushing  home  to  the  bed-side  of 
a  supposedly  sick  child,  fearing  the  worst,  and  be  met  by 
some  one  who  told  you  that  the  report  of  the  child's  illness  was 
false. — that  it  was  not  ill  at  all.  Here  would  be  pleasure  and 
surprise  united,  but  there  would  be  no  laughter, — grateful 
tears,  instead. 

Pope's  definition  is  well-known.  According  to  the  author 
of  the  "Dunciad"  and  "The  Rape  of  the  Lock,"  wit  is  some- 
thing that  "oft  was  thought,  but  ne'er  so  well  expressed.'* 

Now.  your  common  sense  tells  you  that  Pope  is  as  far  wrong 
as  Addison.  The  witticism  which  makes  you  laugh  is  apt  to 
tickle  you  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  a  new  idea,  or  an  old 
idea  given  some  ridiculous  application.  The  mere  perfection 
of  expressin  does  not  bear  any  relation  to  wit.  Your  admira- 
tion is  excited  by  it,  but  not  your  laughter. 

To  be  witty,  one  need  not  necessarily  be  wise ;  to  be  humorous, 
one  need  not  ever  to  have  seen  the  inside  of  a  schoolhouse. 

Three  of  the  most  facetious  men  that  I  ever  knew  had  little 
wisdom  or  education.  One  of  these  frequently  described  a 
youthful  prank  of  his  in  a  way  that  reminded  one  of  incidents 
narrated  in  "Georgia  Scenes." 

The  time. — some  ten  or  fiften  years  "before  the  war;''  the 
scene, — the  young  and  rising  hamlet  of  Dearing.  Georgia :  the 
persons  of  the  drama. — old  man  John  Harris,  his  wife,  Cassie, 
and  the  mischievous  son.  Jack. 

In  those  days,  the  supper  table  of  country  folk  of  humble 
fortune  was  lit  up  by  a  long  tallow  candle,  stuck  in  the  old- 
time  tin  candlestick.  In  those  days,  "Roman  Candles"  were  a 
brand  new  contrivance  in  the  way  of  fire-works, — at  least  they 
were  unknown  to  the  country  people  of  Georgia. 

Young  Jack  Harris  goes  down  to  Augusta,  about  Christmas 
time,  and  is  greatly  interested  in  this  new  invention,  this 
Roman  Candle,  which  he  finds  Augusta  boys  shooting.  Among 
other  Christmas  articles,  he  buys  a  few  of  these  candles,  and 
carries  them  home  with  him  to  Dearing.  That  night,  after 
supper  has  been  put  on  the  table.  Mrs.  Cassie  Harris  calls 
everybody  into  the  room,  and  proceeds  to  light  the  candle.  It 
is  dusk,  her  eyes  are  getting  dim,  she  has  no  suspicions,  and 
she  does  not  in  the  least  doubt  that  she  is  setting  fire  to  the 
usual  tallow  dip.  But  young  Jack  had  stuck  one  of  his  Roman 
Candles  into  the  holder,  and  it  is  that  which  Mrs.  Harris  lights. 

Old  Jack  and  Cassie  settle  in  their  places,  composedly,  the 
candle  giving  a  dim  light  as  the  paper  end  burns  off,  when,  all 
of  a  sudden,  the  first  charge  in  the  barrel  is  reached  and  then— 


S6 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


shoot! — np  goes  a  ball  of  fire,  the  holder  tips  over,  and  the 
room  is  in  darkness. 

Old  Jack  dashes  out  of  the  front  door  for  dear  life,  and 
Mrs.  Cassie  trots  nimbly  ont  of  the  back  door, — both  in  a  state 
of  the  greatest  consternation.  They  stand  outside,  dumb- 
founded, waiting  for  more. 

The  Roman  Candle  is  a  good  one,  and,  after  the  usual  sput- 
terings  and  fryings, — shoot! — comes  the  second  ball  of  fire. 
Of  course,  the  force  of  the  discharge  causes  the  Roman  Candle 
to  "kick,"  whirl  around,  and  do  things  to  the  crockery.  First,, 
there  is  darkness  and  ominous  sputtering,  then, — shoot! — and 
a  sudden  illumination;  then  a  cup  and  saucer  falls  off  the  table 
with  a  loud  crash,  then  a  plate  or  two,  and  then  a  pitcher — old 
Jack  and  Cassie  listening  in  a  state  of  the  hightest  excitement 
and  amazement. 

From  his  side  of  the  darkness  old  John  is  heard  yelling,. 
"C&ssay!  CasSAY! !   What  in  the  hell's  the  matter  in  there?" 

And  from  Mrs.  Harris'  side  of  the  gloom  comes  the  feeble 
and  quaking  admission,  "I  don't  know." 

Of  course,  the  Roman  Candle  fires  its  last  round  in  due  time,, 
and  the  fugitives  venture  back  into  the  house,  strike  a  light 
and  investigate.  Then,  they  see  that  young  Jack  has  been  up 
to  one  of  his  tricks,  and  he  comes  in  for  angry  verbal 
trouncings. 

Now,  I  am  aware  of  the  fact  that  some  such  story  as  this  is 
now  to  be  found  in  the  books,  but  I  am  sure  that  this  particular 
joke,  as  played  upon  his  parents  and  afterwards  related  by 
him,  was  original  with  "Jack"  Harris. 

Occasionally,  he  wrote  letters  for  the  county  papers,  and,  to 
those  who  were  acquainted  with  the  people  of  whom  he  wrote, 
the  letters  were  as  humorous  as  Bill  Arp's.  In  a  small  way, 
Jack  acted  as  attorney  in  the  J ustice  Court  of  his  militia 
district,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  would  sometimes  mystify 
his  honor,  the  J.  P.,  was  comical.  He  actually  had  a  levy 
dismissed  once,  upon  the  ground  that  the  mule  levied  on  was 
older  than  the  Fi  Fa. 

When  it  was  reported  that  a  newly  elected  J.  P.  had  been 
requested  to  come  up  to  the  County  site  and  be  qualified,  Jack's 
comment  was,  "Well,  they  can  swear  him  in,  but  all  h— 1  can't 
qualify  him." 

Another  of  these  illiterate  and  obscure  humorists  used  to 
describe  an  adventure  in  hunting.  A  party  of  young  men,  on 
a  dark  night,  go  out  to  a  "new  ground"  to  kill  birds.  The 
way  of  it  is  this:  the  party  carry  torches  of  "fat"  pine,  and 
they  surround  a  large  brush-heap,  in  which  birds  are  roosting. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


^7 


The  brush-heap  is  given  a  shake,  and  out  fly  the  birds.  The 
men.  equipped  with  boughs  broken  from  bushes,  beat  down  the 
birds — the  poor  things  being  blinded  and  bewildered  by  the 
lights  and  the  noise.    It  used  to  be  great  sport. 

On  the  night  in  question,  the  brush-heaps  were  very  large, 
very  dry.  and  quite  full  of  birds.  The  young  men  were  having 
a  fine  time.  Suddenly,  one  of  them,  who  had  taken  his  position 
on  a  stump  at  the  edge  of  a  big  brush  pile,  lost  his  balance  in 
striking  at  a  bird,  and  pitched  head-foremost  into  the  heap. — ■ 
head  down  and  heels  up  in  the  air.  Naturally,  he  threw  out 
his  hands  in  falling,  and  thus  he  plunged  his  blazing  torch 
into  the  very  midst  of  the  dry  leaves,  twigs  and  limbs.  His 
shout  of  alarm  as  he  fell,  the  way  in  which  the  brush-heap 
took  fire,  right  under  him.  the  manner  in  which  he  waved  his 
legs  for  help, — they,  of  course:  pointing  skyward  while  his 
head  was  buried  in  the  brush  pile. — his  yells  for  "the  boys"  to 
come  and  pull  him  out :  the  ludicrous  figure  he  cut.  turned 
upside  down  as  he  was:  his  wild  scrambling  to  get  out  of 
there,  and  his  utter  helplessness  and  growing  terror,  and  the 
increasing  urgency  of  his  cries  for  help. — all  this  was  described 
and  acted  in  a  style  that  was  pure  comedy. 

The  same  man  related  an  incident  which  he  had  witnessed. 
A  farmer  had  a  flock  of  sheep.  They  had  eaten  out  one  pas- 
ture and  he  was  about  to  let  them  into  a  new  one.  The  sheep 
were  very  tired  of  the  exhausted  range,  and  very  eager  to 
leave  it.  So.  when  the  farmer  came  to  the  fence  and  began 
to  make  motions  like  a  man  who  meant  to  open  a  gap.  they 
were  all  attention.  As  he  proceeded  to  lay  off  one  rail  and 
then  another,  the  stately  old  bell-wether  marched  up.  followed 
by  all  the  flock,  ready  to  enter  the  new  pasture.  Eail  after 
rail  came  down,  the  bell-wether  growing  more  impatient  every 
moment.  Finally,  when  the  farmer  had  almost  got  the  gap  to 
suit  him.  the  bell-wether  could  wait  no  longer.  The  farmer 
was  stooping,  in  the  act  of  removing  the  last  rail,  when  the 
impatient  leader  of  the  flock  decided  to  jump  over  the  stooping 
farmer  into  the  inviting  range  beyond. 

Just  as  the  sheep  leaped,  the  man  was  straightening,  and  the 
sheep  struck  him,  knocking  him  down.  But  on  went  the  leader 
of  the  flock,  and  of  course,  nothing  could  stop  the  other  sheep. 
They  had  to  follow  their  leader.  Each  time  the  farmer  tried 
to  get  up  a  sheep  would  floor  him.  and  this  went  on  until  he 
had  been  literally  knocked  down  by  every  sheep  in  his  flock. 

This  story  was  told  me.  with  such  particulars  that  no  one 
could  doubt  the  incident,  but  some  years  later,  in  reading  one 
of  the  British  essayists — Leigh  Hunt.  I  came  upon  a  similar 
anecdote:  yet  I  am  sure  Major  Hendon  witnessed  the  scene 
which  he  so  often  and  so  humorously  described. 


88 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Sometimes,  the  fun  grows  out  of  sayings  and  situations  not 
intended  to  be  funny. 

Take  for  instance,  this  sentence  from  a  court-house  speech 
of  Sampson  Levy,  of  the  Philadelphia  bar:  "Gentlemen  of 
the  jury,  his  iniquity  stares  you  in  the  face  with  gigantic 
strides." 

Or  take  an  extract  from  one  of  the  parliamentary  orations 
of  Boyle  Eoche.  The  gallant  son  of  Erin  was  assailing  the 
Government,  of  course,  and  was  referring  to  the  nefarious 
schemes  of  the  ministerial  bunch: 

"I  know  what  they  are  at:  I  see  the  storm  brewing;  I  smell 
a  rat,  and  I'll  nip  it  in  the  bud." 

In  another  of  Sir  Boyle's  fervent  addresses  he  enthusiasti- 
cally advocated  some  pet  measures  of  his — the  Union,  perhaps 
— and  rapturously  prophesied  that,  if  adopted,  it  would 
"change  barren  hills  into  fruitful  valleys." 

These  sayings  strike  me  as  being  funny,  but  they  were  not 
so  intended.  Neither  Sir  Boyle  nor  Sampson  Levy  set  up 
for  a  wit. 

Upon  an  occasion  when  I  was  spending  the  day  at  Liberty 
Hall,  one  of  Mr.  Stephens'  bosom  friends,  James  D.  Waddell, 
spoke  and  acted  a  jury-speech  of  a  certain  North  Georgia 
lawyer.  This  attorney  was  a  man  of  family,  past  middle  age, 
and  a  leader  of  the  bar  of  that  circuit.  His  client  was  being 
tried  for  murder.  The  man  had  shot  the  seducer  of  his  daugh- 
ter. The  old  lawyer  was  putting  in  his  best  licks  for  his 
client,  lashing  himself  into  a  fury  as  he  pictured  the  enormity 
of  the  provocation  which  had  caused  the  homicide.  He  not 
only  spoke  of  what  any  man  would  do  under  similar  circum- 
stances, but  put  himself  in  defendant's  place,  telling  the  jury 
what  he — the  doddering  old  lawyer — would  have  done  had 
any  man  wronged  one  of  his  daughters  in  that  way.  In  a 
burst  of  noble  eloquence,  he  snorted,  "Why,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury;  if  any  vile  wretch  treated  one  of  me  own  darters  like 
that,  I'd  shoot  him  down! — 'jes  as  I  would  the  bear  that  stole 
me  pig! ! !" 

As  Jim  Waddell  spoke  this,  mimicking  the  tones  and  atti- 
tude of  the  old  Marietta  lawyer,  Mr.  Stephens  laughed  as  boy- 
ishly as  any  of  us.  In  fact,  Alexander  H.  Stephens  dearly 
loved  a  joke  or  bit  of  pleasantry,  and  some  of  his  own  retorts, 
on  the  hustings  and  at  the  bar,  were  as  brilliant  as  the  better 
known  witticisms  of  Eobert  Toombs. 

On  the  other  hand,  one  of  the  brainiest  and  wittiest  men  that 
ever  cut  a  figure  in  our  public  life — S.  S.  Cox — wrote  a  book 
on  "Why  We  Laugh,"  doing  his  level  best  to  make  it  funny, 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


89 


and  what  was  the  result?  Nobody  laughed,  and  everybody 
said  the  book  was  wearily,  drearily,  deadly  dull. 

If  wit  were  nothing  more  than  what  the  various  definitions 
claim  it  to  be,  one  could  teach  it  to  others ;  or  one  who  is  not 
a  witty  person  by  nature  could  become  one  by  culture. 

Yet,  we  might  as  well  contend  that  a  teacher  can  implant 
into  one's  being  the  musical  talent,  the  poetical  talent,  the 
talent  which  made  Thackeray,  Charles  Reade  and  Dickens  the 
greatest  of  English  novelists, — or  the  talent  which  made 
O'Connell  a  king  among  men. 

When  Coleridge,  who  sometimes  delivered  public  lectures, 
asked  the  quiet  and  modest  Charles  Lamb,  "Did  you  ever  hear 
me  lecture?"  and  the  demure  essayist  answered,  "I  never  heard 
you  do  anything  else,"  the  humor  does  not  consist,  altogether, 
of  anything  that  either  of  the  two  said:  the  smile  comes  in 
because  you  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  Coleridge  was  a 
most  inveterate  monopolist  of  the  conversation.  Invariably, 
he  did  all  the  talking.  No  one  else  could  edge  in  a  single  word. 
Read  Carlyle's  description  of  Coleridge  and  his  monologues 
in  the  great  Scotchman's  "Life  of  John  Sterling."  It  is  the 
finest  thing  of  the  kind  in  the  English  language. 

One  might,  in  some  sort,  define  the  wit  and  humor  of  Mark 
Twain  and  of  Charles  Dickens,  but,  after  the  definition  was 
completed,  one  would  realize  that  it  did  not  include  the  humor 
of  Charles  Reade — that  subtle,  unobtrusive,  delicious,  and  en- 
tirely modest  humor  which,  by  the  side  of  that  of  Dickens  and 
Mark  Twain,  reminds  you  of  a  lily  amid  hollyhocks,  a  rose 
beside  a  sun-flower,  a  violet  in  company  with  a  corpulent, 
overgrown  chrysanthemum. 

Then,  again,  here's  a  queer  thing:  if  the  funniest  of  stories 
is  advertised  by  him  who  is  to  tell  it,  or  by  some  one  else 
present,  as  being  "the  funniest  thing  you  ever  heard,"  it 
never  is. 

Almost  invariably  the  fun  is  killed  by  the  announcement 
that  it's  coming.  The  same  thing  would  be  true,  perhaps,  of 
the  pathetic;  but  it  isn't  true  of  eloquence.  Sometimes,  though 
not  always,  an  orator  can  talk  off  the  damage  done  him  by  the 
speech  of  introduction.  But  a  joke  never  survives.  Prepare 
people  to  laugh,  and  you've  put  your  witty  man  in  a  hole. 

There  is  on  record  a  case  of  a  woman  who  aspired  to  be  a 
social  leader,  and  who  was  ambitious  to  have  her  "receptions" 
attended  by  the  creme  de  la  creme,  don't  you  know.  Well,  she 
invited  the  wag  of  the  town  to  be  present.  The  funny  man 
went.  As  soon  as  his  hat  was  safely  anchored  and  he  had 
made  his  salutations  in  due  form,  the  tactful  hostess  sang  out, 
in  a  loud  encouraging  voice.  "Now,  Mr.  So-and-So.  you  must 
be  at  your  funniest  tonight.  You  must  make  everybody  laugh." 


pa 

listorical,  Literary,  Etc. 


The  poor  fellow  was  annihilated,  and  not  a  single  witty 
thing  could  he  think  of  that  evening. 

Then,  why  is  it  that  some  things  are  amusing  when  you  first 
hear  them,  become  nuisances  ever  after,  while  others  retain 
their  flavor  and  cause  you  to  smile  each  time  they  recur  % 

For  example,  consider  that  idiotic,  summer-time  tormentor 
who  asks,  "Is  it  hot  enough  for  you?" 

It  is  possible  that  this  quotation,  when  first  propounded,  on 
a  day  of  sultry  heat, — one  sufferer  dolefully  speaking  to  an- 
other,— might  have  seemed  ludicrous  and  might  have  been 
amusing.' 

I  don't  say  that  it  was, — what  I  say,  and  all  than  can  con- 
scientiously be  said  by  any  God-fearing  man,  is  that  the  idiotic 
question  might  possibly  once  have  been,  and  for  one  time  only, 
amusing.  But  I  think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  the  inquiry 
has  become  a  virulent  and  criminal  nuisance,  and  the  man  who 
asks  it  an  intolerable,  pestiferous  and  unmitigated  bore. 

On  the  other  hand,  who  would  ever  fail  to  get  fun,  at  least 
once  a  year,  forever,  out  of  the  celebrated  case  of  "Bardell  v. 
Pickwick;"  the  rehearsal  of  the  servants  in  "She  Stoops  to 
Conquer;"  and  "A  Coon-hunt  in  a  Fency  Country,"  appended 
to  "Major  Jones'  Courtship,"  and  the  family  quarrel,  in  Paris, 
which  Thackeray  describes  in  "Philip?"  In  the  forgotten 
Southern  author's  book, — "Flush  Time  of  Alabama  and  Mis- 
sissippi" you  may  find  the  record  of  the  trial  of  a  law-case 
equally  as  good  as  Dickens'  "Bardell  v.  Pickwick."  (It  is  a 
wonder  to  me  that  some  publisher  does  not  bring  out  a  new 
edition  of  that  splendid  work.) 

In  "Gait's  Eeports"  is  given  an  account  of  a  hardened 
sinner  who  was  prayed  for  at  a  religious  revival  by  a  solicitous 
church  member.  In  the  course  of  this  voluntary  appeal  for  the 
sinner  in  question,  the  member  who  was  doing  the  praying 
saw  fit  to  tell  the  Lord  all  about  said  sinner.  According  to  the 
prayer,  the  subject  of  it  had  just  about  run  the  whole  gamut 
of  immorality. 

The  sinner  did  not  relish  this  prayer  the  least  bit.  The  more 
he  thought  of  it,  the  madder  he  got,  In  a  day  or  so  he  was 
wrought  up  to  such  a  pitch  that  he  went  and  saw  a  Justice  of 
the  Peace.  In  those  days,  Federal  Judges  were  mollycoddles 
compared  to  country  justices.  This  particular  Justice  took 
jurisdiction  of  the  sinner's  case,  without  hesitation,  and  issued 
a  summons  against  the  prayerful  church  member,  haling  him 
to  court  to  meet  the  charge  of  libel. 

The  evidence  was  undisputed,  and  to  the  Justice  it  was  one 
of  Dan'l.  Dennis'  plain  cases.  He  found  the  Defendant  guilty, 
sentenced  him  to  pay  Plaintiff  a  sow  and  twelve  pigs,  and  to 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


91 


give  bond  not  ever  to  pray  for  Defendant  any  more.  The 
Defendant  took  no  appeal.  He  delivered  the  sow  and  pigs, 
paid  the  costs,  turned  and  walked  off. 

"Hold  on  there  !"  cried  his  honor,  the  Justice.  "You  haven't 
given  bond  not  to  pray  for  Plaintiff  again." 

"No  use  givin'  bond,"  came  the  response.  "I'd  see  him  in 
h — 1,  before  I'd  ever  pray  for  him  any  more." 

Sometimes  the  wit  is  born  of  circumstances,  and  not  of 
words  at  all. 

For  example,  a  few  years  ago  when  Queen  Victoria  was  still 
reigning, — the  "silver  tonguecl  orator  of  Kentucky,"  Breckin- 
ridge, became  involved  in  a  most  scandalous  affair  with  a 
woman.  It  "came  out"  that  Breckinridge  was  a  rake  of  long 
standing.  Well,  to  a  certain  extent,  his  friends  rallied  around 
him,  while  poor  Madeline  Pollard  betook  herself  to  a  convent. 
During  Breckinridge's  canvass  for  re-election,  and  while  ad- 
dressing one  of  the  crowds,  he  made  the  announcement  that, 
immediately  after  the  election,  he  meant  to  go  to  England. 
The  band  struck  up  "God  Save  the  Queen!"  and  everybody,  in 
Kentucky  and  elsewhere,  laughed. 

Could  you  put  the  why  into  a  definition?  Impossible. 

Did  you  ever  think  of  the  important  part  which  Wit  has 
played  in  human  affairs? 

You  have  seen  its  triumphs  in  the  court-house,  where  many 
a  truthful  witness  has  been  made  to  seem  a  liar  by  the  witty 
lawyer  conducting  the  cross-examination.  You  have  seen  juries 
influenced  by  wit  and  humor,  and  led  into  the  belief  that  the 
attorney  who  got  the  laugh  on  his  opponent  had  the  better  case. 

So,  on  the  hustings  wit  often  wins  a  victory  at  the  expense 
of  right.  Many  a  man,  totally  unfit  for  the  place,  has  won  his 
way  to  Congress  with  catchy  anecdotes  and  with  his  ability 
to  make  his  rival  appear  ridiculous. 

There  is  a  well-known  instance  of  a  legislative  Committee 
being  won  over,  to  the  wrong  side,  by  a  witty  story.  The 
victor  was  Chauncey  Depew,  and  the  fruit  of  his  triumph  was 
one  more  franchise  privilege  for  the  Vandebilt  family,  whose 
paid  servant  Depew  was. 

At  every  state  capitol  and  at  our  national  capitol  are  highly- 
salaried  lobbyists  who  are  hired  by  the  corporations  to  in- 
fluence legislators.  One  of  the  most  useful  talents  of  these 
hirelings  is  the  ability  to  amuse  their  prey.  They  wine  and 
dine  the  patriotic  member  and  they  tickle  him  with  funny 
yarns,  and  the  first  thing  he  knows  he  sees  everything  through 
the  glasses  of  his  jolly  entertainer. 


92 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


By  his  famous  "Duluth"  speech,  Proctor  Knott,  of  Ken- 
tucky, laughed  out  of  court  a  subsidy  bill;  and  General 
Schenck  by  a  witticism  broke  down  the  opposition  to  his  Tariff 
Act  of  1870-1. 

All  who  have  studied  the  career  of  Mr.  Lincoln  know  how 
well  his  store  of  anecdotes,  aptly  told,  served  him  in  the  court- 
room, on  the  hustings  and  in  the  grave  deliberations  of  the 
Cabinet. 

It  is  certain  that  without  his  wit  that  marvelous  Jew, 
Disraeli,  would  never  have  conquered  the  aristocracy  of  Great 
Britain ;  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  had  not  he  been  Premier 
of  Great  Britain  the  history  of  the  world  would  have  been 
different. 

Yet,  the  excessive  use  of  wit  lowers  its  possessor,  and  he  loses 
weight  no  matter  how  learned  and  capable. 

Tom  Corwin,  of  Ohio,  was  a  very  much  abler  lawyer  than 
Mr.  Lincoln;  but  because  of  his  too  lavish  employment  of  his 
laughter-provoking  gifts,  the  country  would  never  rate  him 
at  his  true  value.  The  same  was  true  of  S.  S.  Cox, — yet  Cox 
wTas  easily  the  master  of  James  G.  Blaine  in  debate. 

The  wit  may  be  a  merry  man  and  a  hard-hearted,  but  a 
genuinely  humorous  man  is  almost  always  a  sad  man,  and  full 
of  human  kindness. 

Of  all  our  Presidents,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  the  saddest,  and 
none  of  them  had  so  rich  a  vein  of  humor.  We  know  of 
Lowell's  humor, — and  do  we  not  have  by  heart  that  little  poem 
of  hopeless,  incurable  grief,  "After  the  Funeral?"  In  Poe's 
fugitive  writings,  reviews,  etc.,  there  are  to  be  found  gems  of 
humor,  and  what  figure  is  more  tragic  than  that  of  this 
dreamer, —  straj^ed  from  classic  antiquity  into  backwoods 
America  ? 

In  American  politics,  the  ill-timed  jest  has  often  upset  the 
best  laid  plans.  Stephens  A.  Douglas  probably  lost  the  nomina- 
tion at  the  famous  Charleston  Convention  because  of  a  joke 
cracked  by  the  "little  giant"  at  the  expense  of  Howell  Cobb 
during  a  dinner  at  the  home  of  Toombs. 

The  enmity  which  Vice-President  Stephens,  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  cherished  for  Benjamin  H.  Hill  was  a  serious 
handicap  to  Mr.  Davis'  administration.  It  is  possible  that 
this  enmity  grew  out  of  the  Lexington  debate,  in  which  Mr. 
Hill  got  the  laugh  on  Mr.  Stephens  so  completely. 

It  was  the  convivial  jocularity  of  Robert  Toombs,  at  a 
certain  dinner  table  in  Montgomery,  that  made  a  bad  impres- 
sion upon  delegations  who  did  not  know  of  Toombs'  reserved 
powers;  and  this  idle  jesting  and  wine  bibbing  caused  him 
to  lose  the  Presidency  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  With 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


93 


Toombs  as  Chief  Executive,  we  would  either  have  whipped, 
or  been  whipped,  inside  of  a  year. 

The  humor  of  Spain,  few  of  us  know  anything  about,  save 
as  we  enjoy  it  in  Don  Quixote.  Cervantes  said  that  he  could 
have  made  the  book  much  more  entertaining  had  it  not  been 
for  Inquisitorial  and  political  intimidation.  One  can  well 
believe  it.  for  Church  and  State  in  Spain  were  tempting  tar- 
gets for  satire.  Nevertheless,  Sancho  Panza.  whether  as 
humble  squire  or  as  Governor  of  the  Island,  is  a  source  of 
perennial  diversion.  But  Cervantes  did  not  "laugh  Spain's 
chivalry  away."  in  the  sense  that  Byron  meant,  for  chivalry, 
as  an  institution,  had  already  been  blown  away  by  gunpowder. 

And  that  reminds  me  of  a  curious  mistake  made  by  lovers 
of  Shakespeare.  In  Harry  Hotspur's  account  of  the  court  fop 
who  came  to  him  on  the  battle-field  and  minced  and  postured 
and  put  on  airs,  occurs  the  oft-quoted  line:  "*  *  *  and  said 
he  would  himself  have  been  a  soldier  but  for  those  vile  guns." 

Xow.  the  whole  world  laughs  over  that  saying  of  the  popin- 
jay, as  though  he  had  meant  that  he  would  have  been  a  soldier, 
had  there  been  no  danger. 

That  is  not  the  meaning  at  all.  What  the  coxcomb  was 
driving  at  was  about  this. — "We  no  longer  fight,  altogether, 
with  sword  and  lance :  we  can  no  longer  rely  upon  armor  and 
individual  skill  and  strength:  war  is  no  longer  a  matter  of 
chivalry,  or  personal  prowess,  in  which  the  long  training  of 
the  Knights  tell  on  the  battle-field.  These  vile  guns  which 
have  been  recently  introduced  have  robbed  war  of  its  romance. 
A  cobbler,  or  a  baker,  or  a  candle-stick  maker,  who  has  never 
been  trained  at  arms,  can  now  be  taught  to  stick  a  torch  to 
touch-hole  of  a  musket,  and  with  this  vile  gun.  said  vulgar 
Xobody  may  blow  Sir  Knight  to  kingdom  come,  and  Sir 
Knight  never  be  able  to  get  near  enough  to  said  vulgar  Xobody 
to  spit  him  upon  chivalric  lance." 

That's  what  the  fine-feather  dude  meant.  Like  the  dandies 
of  the  French  Court,  he  was  probably  brave  enough  to  fight 
and  die. — but  he  was  disgusted  with  the  gunpowder  innovation 
which  deprived  aristocracy  of  its  advantages  over  democracy 
in  the  shock  of  battle. 

French  wit  and  humor  is  better  known  to  us  than  that  of 
any  other  continental  state.  We  are  familiar  with  Moliere, 
Montaigne.  Voltaire.  LeSage.  Beaumarchais.  Eochefoucald. 
Chamfort.  Beranger.  Madame  de  Sevigne.  Dumas.  Balzac. — to 
say  nothing  of  racy  collectors  of  stories,  like  Queen  Marguerite 
of  Valois.  and  numberless  writers  of  memoirs  and  farces  and 
short  stories. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


But  the  richest  and  most  varied  wit  and  humor  of  which  we 
have  any  knowledge  is  the  Celtic  contribution  to  literature. 
The  great  Germanic,  or  Teutonic,  people  were  unromantic,  had 
no  gaiety  of  soul,  had  no  delicacy  and  brilliance  of  intellect, 
had  no  tenderness  and  little  imagination.  They  were  a  matter 
of  fact  race. 

Now,  these  strong,  fierce  and  unsentimental  Germanic  people 
overcame  the  native  Celts  of  England,  and  in  the  course  of 
time  the  two  races  blended.  We  are  not  Anglo-Saxons.  Even 
our  russet-haired,  blue-eyed  types,  tall  and  fair  skinned  are 
no  more  than  the  recurrence  of  a  lost  type, — just  as  a  black 
child,  woolly  and  smelly,  is  sometimes  born  to  parents,  one  of 
whom  is  white  and  the  other  nearly  so. 

The  Germanic  people  who  invaded  and  conquered  England 
were  not  so  numerous  as  the  native  Celts,  and  the  so-called 
Anglo-Saxons  of  today  are  more  Celt  than  Teuton. 

On  every  hand,  it  is  admitted  that  English  literature  owes  its 
most  fascinating  elements,  not  to  the  conquerors,  but  to  the 
conquered.  The  light  play  of  fancy,  the  tenderness  of  senti- 
ment, the  brilliance  of  wit  and  the  richness  of  humor,  the  finer 
qualities  of  our  music  and  poetry,  the  gracefulness  of  literary 
form  and  expression,  are  but  items  in  the  list  of  debts  that  we 
owe  to  the  Celt. 


The  Egyptian  Sphinx  and  the  Negro 

Every  few  months,  the  New  York  Evening  Journal.  Mr. 
Hearst's  paper,  feasts  its  readers  upon  a  brief  editorial  dealing 
in  the  most  novel  way  with  the  Egyptian  Sphinx  and  the 
negro.  This  editorial  Was  used  again  a  year  or  two  ago  and, 
asking  the  pardon  of  its  author  (whom  I  assume  to  be  the 
very  able  and  learned  Arthur  Brisbane) .  I  propose  to  discuss  it. 

The  Hearst  paper,  referring  to  the  thick  lip  of  the  negro, 
declares  that  "those  lips  appear  upon  every  Sphinx  in  Egypt;*' 
and  that  "the  ancestors  of  the  negro  were  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  our  religion  and  were  mapping  the  stars"  at  a  time 
when  our  ancestors  were  "gibbering  savages,  living  in  caves, 
sharpening  bones  and  eating  raw  meat." 

Why  should  any  white  man  tell  the  negroes  that  their  fore- 
fathers were  vastly  superior  to  ours?  What  possible  benefit 
to  either  race  can  come  from  the  publications  of  that  kind  I 
If  we  accept  the  Darwin  theory  we  may,  indeed,  be  forced  to 
I  admit  that  the  negroes  are  our  progenitors,  in  the  same  sense 
I  that  the  apes  are;  but,  if  this  concession  compels  us  to  adopt 
\  the  theory  that  the  negroes  are  the  authors  of  our  civilization, 
we  might  just  as  well  go  backward  a  step  further  and  give  the 
credit  to  the  apes.  Logic  is  never  so  captivating  as  when  it 
makes  us  go  the  whole  hog. 

The  Afro-American  has  had  too  much  mischief  put  into  his 
head,  already,  for  the  good  of  the  country.  New  York  Cos- 
mopolitan Club  pledged  to  miscegenation;  Social  Equality 
Colleges,  like  that  which  Bryan  patronizes  and  helps  with 
donations;  negro  politicians  appointed  to  represent  this  Gov- 
ernment abroad;  Fred  Douglas  at  Cleveland's  wedding  recep- 
tion and  Booker  Washington  at  the  Roosevelt  luncheon ;  negro 
officers  in  the  army:  negro  Registers  of  the  United  States 
Treasury ;  negroes  in  charge  of  Custom  Houses ;  three  thousand 
negroes  on  the  national  pay-roll  in  Washington;  negroes  as 
judges,  city-councilmen  and  policemen, — all  these  instances  of 
"recognition"  have  but  whetted  the  appetite  for  more. 

Such  negroes  as  Booker  Washington  and  Kelly  Miller  con- 
tend that  their  race  is  mentally  equal  to  the  Caucasian;  and 
when  their  claim  is  virtually  endorsed  by  a  great  newspaper, 
edited  by  a  scholarly  gentleman  who  receives  the  highest  salary 
ever  paid  for  work  of  that  kind,  the  souls  of  the  arrogant  and 
aggressive  Afro- Americans  must  feel  greatly  rejoiced  and 
elated. 


96  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

T. 

Is  it  true  that  the  white  tribes,  our  ancestors,  were  ever  "gib- 
bering* savages,  living  in  caves,  sharpening  bones,  and  subsist- 
ing on  raw  flesh?" 

I  suppose  it  is  conceded  that  we  are  descended  from  Ger- 


ASSYRIAN  SPHINX,  WINGS,  WOMAN,  LION. 


manic  stocks,  Teutons,  Angles,  Saxons,  and  Cimbri,  or  Celts. 

When  were  these  people  "gibbering  savages?" 

Tacitus  does  not  class  them  so,  nor  does  Julius  Csesar,  yet 
both  of  these  authorities  were  unfriendly.  To  Csesar,  our 
ancestors  were  foes  to  be  despised  and  destroyed.   To  Tacitus, 


ASSYRIAN  HORSEMEN:  WAR. 


they  were  enemies  whom  he  had  never  seen  and  of  whom  he 
had  only  heard  through  Roman  soldiers  who  had  fought  them. 
Suppose  General  Sam  Houston  or  General  Wood  had  written 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  97 


a  history  of  Mexico. — what  sort  of  treatment  could  the  Mexi- 
cans have  expected?  The  whole  nation  would  probably  have 
been  described  as  "greasers,"  and  we  should  never  have  thought 
Mexico  capable  of  the  wonderful  progress  she  made  under 
Diaz.  Yet  Tacitus  describes  the  Germanic  peoples  as  semi- 
civilized,  and  praises  a  portion  of  them. — the  Chaui — as  ideal 
characters. 

Montelius  declared  that  in  the  Scandinavian  home  of  our 
forefathers  there  existed,  5,000  years  before  Christ,  a  civiliza- 
tion similar  to  that  described  in  Homer.  It  is  certain  that  the 
Northmen  navigated  the  ocean  and  had  a  commerce.  They  not 
only  used  feather  cushions,  pillows,  and  bed-coverings,  but 
introduced  them  into  Rome !    It  is  certain  that  the  Northmen 


ASSYRIAN  GROOM  AND  HORSES. 


could  weave  cloth  out  of  flax,  and  that  both  the  men  and  women 
covered  their  nakedness  with  woolen,  or  linen  garments.  The 
warriors,  on  a  march  and  in  battle,  however,  wore  nothing  but 
the  skins  of  wild  beasts.  They  were  herders,  and  farmers, 
they  exported  vegetables  as  well  as  cloth,  leather,  feathers, 
and  amber. 

They  lived  in  wooden  houses,  built  over  cellars.  A  fact  of 
the  utmost  value  is  that  these  dwellings  were  of  the  Aryan 
type.  In  winter,  our  ancestors  lived  in  the  cellar,  because  of 
the  extreme  cold.  Travelers  tell  of  just  such  dwellings  in 
Siberia,  at  this  day:  and  the  people  who  retire  to  these  caves, 
or  cellars,  are  not  "gibbering  savagesv  any  more  than  are  the 
inmates  of  crowded,  noisome  tenements  of  Xew  York  City. 


98 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Pliny  says  that  the  Germanic  women  spun  and  wove  ex- 
quisite linen;  and  Virgil  paints  a  cozy  scene  in  the  cave,  or 
cellar,  where  the  Teuton  family  builds  a  cheerful  fire  out  of 
large  logs,  and  enlivens  the  long,  wintry  night  with  games 
and  plays. 

The  Germanic  people  were  notoriously  fond  of  the  bath. 
"Gibbering  savages"  seldom  are.  So  prone  were  our  ancestors 
to  plunge  into  hot  springs  and  into  the  rivers,  that  they  were 
frequently  taken  by  surprise  by  enemies,  who  attacked  them 
while  they  were  bathing.  Such  was  the  case  when  Marius 
saved  Rome  from  the  Cimbri,  at  the  great  battle  of  Aquae 
Sextae.  Germany  not  being  a  hot  country,  fondness  for  cold 
water  proves  a  craving  for  personal  cleanliness. 

That  the  Germanic  tribes  ate  uncooked  flesh  is  true,  but  our 
American  hunters  and  trappers  used  to  do  the  same  thing. 


FIG.  4.     MAN'S  HEAD,  EGYPT. 


Most  of  us  remember  that  when  we  were  growing  up  it  was 
customary,  on  each  plantation,  to  dry  certain  portions  of  a 
beef;  and  we  remember  how  we  relished  chips  shaved  off  this 
raw,  but  dried  joint.  In  like  manner,  Western  hunters  and 
trappers  dried  venison  and  buffalo  meat;  and  such  flesh,  duly 
"jerked,"  was  not  less  cooked  than  much  of  the  so-called  "rare" 
steak  and  roast  which  leaves  a  puddle  of  blood  in  one's  plate. 

Is  the  eating  of  uncooked  food  necessarily  an  evidence  of 
savagery?  If  one  chooses  to  devour  berries  and  fruits  and 
nuts  and  eggs  in  a  raw  state,  is  it  absolutely  certain  that  he 
is  doing  the  unnatural  thing? 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


99 


Among  us,  at  this  day,  we  have  faddists  who  tell  us  that 
cooking  lessens  the  amount  of  nutrition  in  food,  and  renders  it 
more  indigestible.  Can  it  be  proved  that  these  faddists  are 
wrong  ? 

Besides  the  flesh  of  animals,  there  were  many  other  articles 
of  food  among  the  Germanic  tribes.  They  used  milk,  butter, 
cheese,  vegetables,  white  bread,  honey,  fruits  and  berries. 

A  tribe  of  "gibbering  savages''  has  never  been  known  to 
adopt  and  enforce  a  law  to  protect  trees  from  injury;  and 
savages  have  never  been  strict,  among  themselves,  about  land 
lines  and  boundary  marks. 

Yet  our  ancestors  were  rigorous  on  both  subjects.  He  who 
altered  a  land  line,  or  moved  a  "corner,"  was  harshly  pun- 
ished; and  he  who  wilfully  injured  a  tree,  was  put  to  death. 

This  is  the  more  remarkable,  since  Germany  was  almost 
covered  with  forests,  and  farming  is  supposed  to  have  been  a 
secondary  pursuit. 

To  a  student  of  human  affairs,  it  would  seem  that  our  ances- 
tors, coming  from  the  treeless  plains  of  Asia,  set  the  highest 
value  upon  those  vast  forests,  and  were  strict  about  land  lines, 
by.  force  of  hereditary  instinct.  In  the  Old  Testament,  we  find 
regulations  of  the  same  sort  ;  and  these  ideas,  as  we  all  know, 
prevailed  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia — whence  the  Jews  learned 
so  much. 

In  determining  the  status  of  a  people,  a  factor  of  the  first 
importance  is  the  relation  of  the  sexes,  and  the  value  put  upon 
chastity. 

Tacitus,  the  unfriendly  Roman,  praises  the  purity  of  the 
Teutonic  women  in  the  highest  terms,  contrasting  it  with  the 
decadence  of  morals  among  the  Romans. 

When  the  Emperor  Caracalla  gave  some  captive  Germanic 
women  the  option  of  going  into  slavery,  or  being  killed,  they 
chose  death;  and  when  he  sold  them,  anyhow,  they  killed 
themselves.  The  Cimbrian  women  did  likewise,  after  the 
defeat  of  the  tribe  at  Vercellae.  They  offered  to  go  into 
captivity,  provided  they  were  allowed  to  serve  in  the  temples 
and  thus  preserve  their  chastity.  When  this  was  denied  them, 
they  slew  their  children  and  themselves. 

In  the  same  spirit,  the  Cimbrian  women  captured  by  the 
Romans  at  Aquae  Sextae,  killed  themselves  rather  than  submit 
to  the  embraces  of  their  captors. 

Among  our  ancestors,  the  home  was  sacred,  and  the  wife 
honored.  She  was  given  something  of  the  dignity  which  is> 
hers  today,  centuries  before  Jesus  Christ  was  an  influence  in 
the  lives  and  homes  of  men ! 

Indeed,  it  was  the  Germanic  woman  who  managed  both  the 

5-Sketches 


100  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

household  affairs  and  the  farm;  and  she  was  the  member  oiJ 
the  family  who  did  most  of  the  reading  and  writing. 

But  there  remains  the  vital  question  of  Government. 

Our  ancestors  were  free  men,  proud  of  their  long  red  hair, 
which  was  the  badge  of  their  independence.  Kings  had  but 
loose  authority  over  them ;  and  at  first  these  chiefs  were  elective, 
chosen  because  they  were  the  ablest  to  do. 

Every  man  of  the  tribe  was  a  member  of  the  General  Court. 
The  king  had  no  power  of  life  and  death  over  his  followers; 
and  he  could  not  arbitrarily  tax  them.  They  made  their  own 
laws.  In  time  of  war,  the  chief  necessarily  exercised  monarchal 
authority;  but  in  time  of  peace,  the  tribal  government  was 
almost  a  pure  democracy.  Local  self-government  was  an  actual 
fact  among  these  mighty  peoples. 

The  freemen,  themselves,  heard  all  causes,  tried  all  persons 
accused  of  crime,  and  fixed  the  penalty. 

A  most  queer  lot  of  "gibbering  savages,"  these ! 

To  sum  up :  the  very  earliest  records  show  that  our  ancestors 
held  a  tradition  of  their  Aryan  origin  and  of  their  emigration 
from  the  remote  East;  they  had  a  democratic  system  of  gov- 
ernment; they  had  a  system  of  laws;  they  had  a  system  of 
agriculture;  they  were  navigators  of  the  seas;  they  were 
builders  of  houses;  they  mined  and  made  use  of  metals;  they 
had  a  written  language  and  some  literature;  they  were  manu- 
facturers on  a  small  scale;  they  had  a  sense  of  modesty  and 
personal  beauty,  for  they  wore  shoes  and  garments  of  wool 
and  linen,  as  well  as  armlets,  rings,  and  other  ornaments. 

The  man's  house  was  already  his  castle  and  his  home  a 
sanctuary.  If  a  faithless  wife  defiled  it,  her  punishment  was 
death. 

The  Roman  soldier  not  only  dreaded  the  Germanic  warrior, 
but  the  Roman  generalship  found  more  than  its  match  in 
Arminius,  who  destroyed  the  legions  of  Varus.  For  five  hun- 
dred years,  the  Northmen  waged  war  with  Rome,  were  never 
subdued,  and  finally  conquered  her  and  put  Northmen  on  the 
throne  of  the  Csesars ! 

But  the  flower  of  this  primitive  civilization  was  not  the 
valor  of  the  man,  nor  the  stern  jealousy  with  which  he  guarded 
the  honor  of  his  home, — it  was  the  virtue  of  the  women. 

Glorious  and  indestructible  was  the  foundation  of  that 
civilization  on  the  chastity  which  rose  into  "the  triumph  of 
death,"  rather  than  sink  into  the  degradation  of  personal 
impurity. 

From  the  earliest  times  these  Cimbri  and  Teutons  made 
weapons  and  tools  of  metal.    They  didn't  farm  with  a  stick, 


Sketches  : 


Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


101 


as  the  negro  did. — they  had  implements  of  iron  and  bronze, 
made  by  themselves.  They  were  not  only  good  blacksmiths, 
but  they  excelled  in  wood-work.  Their  wagons,  their  houses, 
their  ships  were  home  products.  When  we  call  a  man  a  wheel- 
wright, we  use  a  term  that  is  as  old  as  the  Germanic  tribes. 
So  with  the  word,  smith,  when  applied  to  a  branch  of  industry. 
The  spear-head,  the  lance,  fashioned  from  stone,  iron  or  bronze, 
date  back  to  the  remotest  accounts  of  our  forefathers,  and 
these  weapons  were  made  by  their  own  workmen. 

The  one  great  subject.  Religion,  is  to  be  considered;  and  on 
this  I  think  it  answers  every  practical  purpose  to  say  that  the 
religious  systems  of  our  Cimbric  and  Germanic  ancestors  was 
that  of  those  Egyptians.  Babylonians.  Chaldeans  and  Assyrians 
who,  according  to  the  learned  and  able  Mr.  Brisbane,  were  the 
ancestors  of  the  negroes,  and  who.  according  to  him,  laid  the 
foundations  of  our  own  religious  system. 

Whether  those  ancient  Eastern  peoples  were  the  forefathers 
of  the  negroes,  we  shall  presently  see. 

II. 

The  editorial  in  the  Hearst  newspaper  states  that  "the  thick 
lips  of  the  negro  appear  on  every  sphinx  in  Egypt.'' 

Suppose  that  this  were  true, — what  would  it  prove? 

The  Egyptians  carved  statues  of  Anubis — a  deity  whose 
head  was  that  of  a  jackal.  To  Osiris,  a  chief  god,  they  some- 
times gave  a  human  body  and  a  bull's  head.  To  the  goddess, 
Isis,  was  given  the  body  of  a  woman  and  sometimes,  the  head 
of  a  cow.  The  human  body  of  another  deity  ended  in  the 
head  of  a  hawk. 

This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  whoever  carved  the  sacred 
statues  of  Egypt  had  no  idea  of  constructing  a  national  por- 
trait gallery. 

The  sculptuary  does  not  necessarily  reflect  the  sculptor,  nor 
the  painting,  the  painter.  Some  ages  since,  our  civilization 
may  be  lost,  our  race  disappear,  and  curious  antiquarians  may 
declare,  dogmatically,  that  we  were  identical  with  the  Greeks 
of  the  classic  era.  They  will  prove  it  by  our  gold  and  silver 
coins ! 

Candor  compels  me  to  admit  that  the  national  type  is  apt  to 
be  reflected  in  national  art.  The  Grecian  sphinxes  have  the 
pure  profile  of  the  Hellenes;  and  the  Assyrian  sphinxes  cor- 
respond with  other  native  sculptural  work  whose  purpose  is 
that  of  portraiture. 

It  is  possible,  and  even  probable,  therefore,  that  the  stone- 


102 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


cutter  who  chiselled  the  human  head  of  the  sphinxes,  invol- 
untarily portrayed  the  native  type. 

If  that  be  so,  Mr.  Brisbane's  statement  concerning  the  negro 
lips  becomes  intensely  interesting.  I,  at  least,  found  it  so,  and 
have  taken  some  pains  to  investigate. 

Mr.  Brisbane  sweepingly  avers  that  the  negro  lips  appear 
on  every  Egyptian  sphinx. 

Just  as  sweepingly,  and  with  equal  emphasis,  I  declare  that 
no  sphinx  of  Egypt  has  the  lips  of  a  negro. 

That's  a  clean  cut  issue,  isn't  it?    Now  to  the  proofs. 


The  overwhelmingly  important  thing  to  find  out  is  this: 
How  did  the  Egyptians  picture  a  negro  when  they  meant 
to  do  so? 

It  does  not  concern  us,  in  this  discussion,  to  learn  how  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  and  Israelites  and  Arabs,  or  other  peoples, 
pictured  the  negro  face.  The  fact  that  does  concern  us  is,  how 
did  the  Egyptians  delineate  the  negro  face,  when  they  wanted 
to  do  that  very  thing? 

Turn  to  Figure  6  of  the  accompanying  illustrations,  and  you 
will  find  the  answer.  In  that  picture,  you  see  how  the  Egyp- 
tians represented  the  faces  of  the  four  distinct  races  of  men. 


FIG.  5.    SAM  LANGPORD. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  103 


Note  how  they  place  the  negro  last;  and  note  how  faithfully 
that  flat  nose,  those  blubber  lips  are  portrayed.  The  general 
inferiority  of  the  typical  negro  could  not  now  be  better  shown 
than  it  appears  in  this  illustration,  which  is  thousands  of 
years  old. 

Compare  this  negro  face  with  that  of  the  sphinxes  in  Figures 
9  and  10;  and  you  see  at  a  glance  the  total  dissimilarity. 

In  Figure  1  you  have  an  Egyptian  man's  face  and  head. 
Compare  it  with  the  negro  face  and  head  in  Figure  5,  and 
remark  the  difference;  then  compare  it  with  the  Egyptian 
sphinxes,  and  note  the  resemblance. 

That  head  a,nd  face  of  the  Egyptian  man  is  of  the  same  type 
as  the  iace  of  the  Egyptian  sphinx;  and  both  are  wholly  dis- 
similar from  the  negro  type. 


FIG.  6.    FOUR  RACES  OF  MEN. 


The  lips  of  the  typical  negro  are  so  thick  that  they  curve 
backward  and  show  the  inner  red  surface.  They  are  blubber 
lips.  Now,  the  lips  of  the  sphinxes  are  not  of  that  character. 
They  are  merely  full, — the  typical  Eastern  lip. 

The  "great  sphinx,"  we  should  remember,  has  suffered  much 
in  the  last  century.  Arabs,  and  others,  have  amused  themselves 
by  shooting  at  it.  This  target  practice,  aided  by  the  corrosive 
agency  of  time,  has  greatly  altered  the  face  of  the  mighty 
monument.  Recent  photographs  show  the  wreck  of  a  face; 
but  you  will  find  (Figure  9)  a  cut  engraved  from  a  drawing 
made  in  1816.  The  lips,  as  shown  in  this  picture,  are  not  even 
full.  In  fact,  one  would  not  be  attracted  to  the  lips;  at  all, 
were  it  not  for  the  issue  raised  concerning  them. — whereas, 
the  typical  negro  lip,  like  his  odor,  challenges  attention. 


104  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


As  a  further  evidence  that  the  Egyptian  type  is  not  the 
negro  type,  we  reproduce  the  face  of  Cleopatra.  Pictured  on 
the  inner  wall  of  an  Egyptian  temple,  the  witching  queen  who 


FIG.  7.  CLEOPATRA. 


fascinated  Ca3sar  and  caused  Antony  to  throw  a  world  away, 
does  not  look  much  like  a  negress — as  she  is  claimed  to  be  by 
certain  Afro-Americans  and  their  white  sycophants. 

Cleopatra's  profile  is  that  of  a  sensuous,  even  voluptuous, 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  105 

Semitic  woman  (Fig.  7)  ;  but  very  far  removed  from  the  flat- 
nosed,  blubber-lipped,  woolly-haired  negress, — as  you  will  see 
in  the  streets,  in  the  fields,  and  in  the  illustrations  found  in 
this  article.    (Figure  8.) 


FIG.  8.    SOMALI  WOMAN. 


One  more  word,  and  we  leave  for  Egypt.  Study  the  plate, 
marked  Figure  12.  There  you  will  see  the  faces  of  Egyptians, 
drawn  by  Egyptians,  at  about  the  time  the  great  sphinx  was 
hewn  from  the  rock.  Note  the  chin,  mouth,  nose,  eye  and 
long  hair  of  the  principal  figure — he  who  is  seated  and  in  the 
acting  of  drinking  from  a  glass — and  trace,  if  you  can,  the 
slightest  resemblance  to  the  negro. 

Then  scrutinize  each  one  of  the  smaller  figures, — there  isn't 
a  negro  face  among  them. 

Yet  these  were  native  Egyptians  of  the  Pyramid  era. 

At  the  beginning  of  Kawlinson's  "Egypt,"  Chapter  3,  we 
find  the  statement  : 

"It  is  generally  allowed  by  modern  enthnologists  that  the 
ancient  Egyptians    *    *    *    were  not  Africans." 

"We  must  regard  the  Egyptians,  therefore,  as  an  Asiatic 
people,  immigrants  *  *  *  from  the  East,  *  *  *  nearly 
allied  to  the  Canaanites,  the  Accadians,  the  primitive  Baby- 
lonians and  the  Southern  Arabs." 

On  page  54,  the  learned  Rawlinson  says: 


106  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


"Towards  the  South,  Egypt  had  for  her  immediate  neighbors, 
the  Nahshi,  or  Nahasu,  mho  were  blacks,  and  (it  is  thought) 
true  negroes,  with  out-turned  lips  and  woolly  hair,  &c." 

All  Hamites  were  not  Africans,  and  all  Africans  were  not 
negroes. 

What  historian  or  ethnologist  classes  the  Canaanites,  the 
Phoenicians,  and  Cushites  as  Africans  ?  Yet  they  were 
Hamites. 

So,  it  is  not  by  any  means  true  that  all  Africans  were 
negroes. 

The  Carthaginians  were  Africans,  but  Hamilcar,  Hannibal, 


FIG  9.    GREAT  SPHINX. 


and  Hasdrubal  were  not  of  the  same  race  as  Chaka,  Cetewayo 
and  Kelly  Miller. 

The  Abyssinians  are  Africans,  but  they  are  not  negroes. 
So  with  the  Moors  who  overran  Spain  and  held  it  for  nearly 
a  thousand  years.  The  race  of  men  that  reared  the  Alhambra, 
and  the  great  Mosque  at  Seville  and  who  made  agriculture  a 
fine  art  were  no  kin  to  Guinea  negroes  whose  Kraals  were 
then,  as  now,  loathsome  and  squalid  lodges  of  cane  and  thatch, 
where  the  naked  savages  lived  a  brutish  life. 

Who  can  prove  that  the  original  dwellers  in  Egypt  were  the 
originators  of  architecture,  astronomy  and  religion?  Who  can 
dogmatize  on  a  matter  concerning  which  no  evidence  can  be 
produced  ? 

In  a  "History  of  Civilization,"  by  Julian  Laughlin,  we  are 
told  by  the  author  that  he  has  devoted  a  great  deal  of  labor 
to  the  investigation  of  ancient  Egyptian  history.    His  con- 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  107 


elusion  is  that  the  Nile  valley  was  the  home  of  a  white  race 
which  laid  the  foundations  of  a  civilization.  He  then  takes 
up  the  story  of  the  Hyksos,  the  Shepherd  Kings,  who  con- 


FIG.   11.     EGYPTIAN  SPHINX. 


quered  Egypt  and  who  were  the  Pharaohs  of  the  Bible.  These 
Hyksos  were  a  brown  people,  coming  from  Arabia,  or  some 
contiguous  Eastern  territory. 


FIG.  12.     EGYPTIAN  WALL  PAINTING. 


During  the  reign  of  these  Shepherd  Kings,  Egyptian  con- 
quests were  pushed  to  the  Euphrates  and  into  the  Soudan. 
From  the  plains  of  Shinar,  the  Egyptians  may  have  gained 


108  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


their  knowledge  of  the  Sphinx  and  of  astronomy  and,  also, 
new  ideas  about  religion. 

What  is  certain,  is  that,  from  Ethiopia,  they  brought  home 
negro  prisoners,  for  they  made  pictorial  record  of  that  fact. 
The  reader  of  this  will  find,  upon  examining  Figure  14  of  the 
accompanying  illustrations,  a  string  of  Ethiopian  captives. 
That  drawing  is  so  true  to  life  it  fits  the  typical  negro  of  our 
own  time,  although  made  thousands  of  years  ago. 

It  has  already  been  shown  (Figures  4,  6  and  7)  that  the 
typical  Egyptian  face  was  not  that  of  a  negro;  but  it  may  be 
argued  that  these  illustrations  depict  the  conquerors,  the  brown 
race,  and  not  the  subjected  people. 

Fortunately,  it  is  possible  to  not  only  show,  by  a  picture, 


FIG.  13.     EASTERN  WORKMEN. 


what  manner  of  man  the  Egyptian  laborer  was,  but  also  to 
show  him  at  work,  making  sphinxes !  Let  anyone  look  at 
Figure  13,  and  spot  his  negro.  He  cannot  do  it.  Those 
sphinxes  which  Mr.  Brisbane  says  have  negro  faces, — "every 
one  of  them," — are  being  carved  by  men  who  are  not  negroes. 
Study  the  profile  of  the  sphinxes  themselves,  and  you  will 
know  that  the  workmen  in  the  picture  have  not  given  the  negro 
face  co  a  single  sphinx. 

It  may  be  said  that  these  sculptors  are  not  fairly  represen- 
tative of  Egyptian  laborers,  the  answer  is  complete :  other 
paintings  of  the  same  era  depict  blacksmiths,  shoe-makers, 
cultivators  of  the  soil,  herders  of  cattle,  common  workmen 
bearing  burdens,  etc.,  and  in  each  instance  the  faces  are  of  the 
type  as  shown  in  Figure  12.    (See  Fig.  13.) 

One  more  illustration,  to  prove  that  neither  the  ruling  class 
nor  the  working  class  were  negroes, — and  then  I  pass  on.  The 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  109 


picture  has  its  pathos.  (See  Figure  16.)  Neither  the  form 
nor  the  face  and  head  of  that  poor  woman  of  the  laboring 
class  are  those  of  a  negress.  Indeed,  she  goes  far  toward 
sustaining  Mr.  Laughlin's  theory  of  the  underyling  white  race. 

It  can  hardly  be  that  Mr.  Brisbane's  reference  to  civilized 
ancestry  of  the  negro  meant  the  Chaldeans,  the  Babylonians 
or  Assyrians ;  yet  the  general  impression  is  that  the  Chaldeans 
were  the  first  astronomers ;  and  it  is  believed  that  the  Israelites 
took  much  of  their  religious  system  from  the  peoples  of  the 
Euphrates.  But  the  Ethiopian  could  not  have  got  his  black- 
ness from  the  Semitic  races  who  dwelt  in  the  Babylonian 
regions.  To  say  nothing  of  the  Assyrian  sphinx,  (Figure  1) 
with  its  high-type  head  and  profile,  we  have  only  to  see  the 


portrayal  of  the  Assyrian  face  (Figures  2  and  3)  to  be  con- 
vinced that  the  American  must  look  elsewhere  for  ancestors. 

The  mighty  builders,  developers,  rulers  and  conquerors  who 
made  such  a  garden  out  of  the  desert  valleys  of  the  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates  by  canals,  irrigation  and  intensive  cultiva- 
tion ;  who  erected  such  magnificent  quays,  bridges,  temples 
and  palaces;  who  had  a  literature  which  included  libraries; 
who  had  manufactures  and  commerce  and  a  money  system,  and 
a  regular  and  effective  form  of  government;  who  excelled  in 
music  and  other  fine  arts  and  keenly  appreciated  the  luxury 
and  refinement  of  civilized  life, — these  men  were  never  the 
forefathers  of  naked,  bestial,  ignorant  and  unprogressive 
negroes. 


FIG  16.     EGYPTIAN  WOMAN. 


110  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

IIL 

Most  authorities  hold  that  our  civilization  is  of  Indo- 
Germanic  origin,  and  that  our  ancestors  dwelt  in  the  region 
south  of  the  Caspian  Sea.  From  Turkestan,  for  example, 
they  could  have  entered  Europe  by  crossing  the  narrow 
Hellespont,  or  by  marching  westward  of  the  Caspian  and 
making  for  the  Danube. 

Darwin,  however,  is  inclined  to  think  that  West  Africa  was 
the  original  home  of  the  human  race.  Why?  Because  it  was 
there  that  the  apes  came  so  near  to  being  like  the  men.  Ap- 
parently, he  believed  that  somewhere  in  those  vast  jungles 
might  be  found  a  species  of  the  monkey  tribe  which  would 
form  the  connecting  link  between  the  gorilla  and  the  lowest 
type  of  negro. 

That  West  Africa  has  always  been  the  home  of  this  lowest 


FIG  14.    NEGRO  SLAVES. 


of  human  types  is  practically  certain.  No  remains  of  antiquity 
yet  discovered  exhibit  them  as  being  masters  of  any  other 
territory.  When  wall-paintings,  sculptured  groups,  or  tablet 
inscriptions  prove  their  presence  in  any  other  land,  these 
negroes  appear  as  captives,  or  slaves,  as  envoys,  or  messengers. 
Records  which  admit  of  no  doubt  and  which  reach  back  into 
the  very  dawn  of  history,  picture  this  lowest  human  being, 
giving  him  the  very  features  that  distinguish  him  today.  In 
Rome  he  remained  a  negro;  in  Egypt,  a  negro;  in  Hindostan, 
a  negro;  in  Turky,  a  negro;  in  South  America,  a  negro;  in 
England,  a  negro;  in  these  United  States,  a  negro. 

The  Dutch  have  dwelt  in  South  Africa  for  three  hundred 
years,  and  they  are  white  men  now  as  they  were  when  they 
first  went  to  the  tropics.  The  native  yellow  man  of  Southern 
China  lives  under  the  sun  as  hot  as  that  of  Africa,  and  he 
goes  almost  naked,  as  the  negro  does  in  Africa;  and  yet  the 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc.  Ill 


Chinaman  of  Southern  China  is  no  more  like  the  woolly- 
haired  negro  than  he  was  thousands  of  years  ago.  That  food, 
raiment,  and  climate  do  not  alter  racial  characteristics,  is 
proved  by  the  remarkable  resemblance  of  the  Esquimaux  to 
the  natives  of  Southern  China.  The  former  inhabit  the  frigid 
zone,  live  on  fish  and  flesh,  without  vegetables,  and  wear  the 
warmest  furs  obtainable;  the  latter  are  vegetarians  of  the 


FIG.   15.     ABYSSINIAN  HEADS. 

torrid  zone,  who  wear  almost  nothing  but  their  own  skins. 
This  example  should  convince  all  who  are  open  to  conviction. 

Furthermore,  the  Abyssinians  are  geographical  neighbors  to 
the  people  of  Guinea,  but  the  two  distinct  types  have  remained 
distinct  for  ages.  The  Egyptians,  the  Canaanites,  the  Phoe- 
nicians, were  also  neighbors  to  the  negro,  but  the  racial  types 
remained  radically  different,  from  century  to  century.  (See 
Fig.  15.) 

We  must,  therefore,  accept  the  conclusion:    The  negro  bus 


112  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

always  been  what  he  is,  and  he  will  always  be  what  he  is,  no 
matter  how  many  books  you  rub  into  his  head,  and  no  matter 
how  much  door-of-hope  recognition  may  be  given  him. 

Nature  created  him  inferior  to  the  Caucasian;  and  if  ever 
the  Caucasian  lowers  his  level  to  that  of  the  negro, — in  the 
vain  hope  of  lifting  the  negro  up, — the  crime  against  civiliza- 
tion will  be  punished  by  the  mongrelization  and  degeneration 
of  both  races. 

The  salvation  and  continued  advancement  of  the  United 
States  pivot  on  this  very  subject.  The  negro  is  not  a  menace 
to  our  future  because  he  is  a  negro,  but  because  a  certain 
number  of  misinformed  and  misguided  Caucasians  act  upon 
the  idea  that  the  negro  is  a  Caucasian  painted  black  by  the 
cruel  caprice  of  God ! 

There,  is  the  danger  point.  How  silly  and  pernicious  it  is 
to  judge  the  negro  race  by  a  few  mulattoes  like  Dr.  Booker 
Washington,  or  Prof.  DuBois !  Even  though  a  Zula  type  of 
the  pure-blooded  negro  should  give  proof  of  exceptional 
capacity, — what  does  that  prove  for  the  whole  negro  race? 
The  Zula  type  is  rare;  the  low  Guinea  type  abounds. 

Why  do  not  our  Northern  negro-philes  recognize  the  great 
truth  that  the  negro,  in  this  country,  is  but  a  copyist?  His 
civilization  is  a  pale  reflection  of  ours.  His  good  conduct,  in 
so  far  that  it  is  good,  results  from  our  example,  our  encourage- 
ment, our  compulsion.  Of  his  own  initiative,  he  has  never 
done  anything,  and  he  never  will.  In  all  the  long  reach  of 
the  ages,  he  has  not  contributed  one  ray  of  light  to  civilization. 

Creative  intellect  was  not  given  him.  No  original  idea  of 
his  lives  in  poetry  or  song,  in  stone  or  upon  canvas,  in  written 
book  or  hieroglyphic.  Commerce  owes  him  nothing ;  the  ocean 
roared  at  his  feet  even  as  it  did  at  the  feet  of  our  ancestors, 
but  he  never  dared  to  build  ship  and  brave  the  deep,  as  Celt 
and  Teuton,  Saxon  and  Angle  did. 

Agriculture  owes  him  nothing:  he  lived  on  raw  flesh,  nuts, 
roots,  fruits  which  nature  gave  him,  and  his  farming  was  done 
with  a  crudity  that  would  have  excited  the  contempt  of  a 
Creek,  or  a  Cherokee  Indian.  For  nearly  1,300  years  he  lived 
in  contact  with  Arabs,  and  about  the  only  thing  he  learned 
from  them  was  to  boil  fish.  When  hungry  he  eats  it  raw  and 
undried,  even  now.    (See  Fig.  18.) 

The  science  of  Government  owes  him  nothing;  he  was  ruled 
by  his  fears,  and  never  knew  what  law  was,  save  as  he  trembled 
before  his  despotic  King,  or  grovelled  at  the  feet  of  his 
ignorant  humbug  of  a  priest. 

The  Arts  owe  him  nothing :  he  lived  in  a  filthy  hut  which  a 
Seneca  or  an  Iroquois  would  have  scorned;  his  sculptuary 


114  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


confined  itself  to  the  carving  of  hideous  fetiches;  his  music — 
his  much  vaunted  music  ! — never  took  flight  beyond  a  monot- 
onous chant,  until  he  caught  the  rhythm  and  the  melody 
of  ours, 

To  the  negro  in  his  native  land,  the  grand  march  of  the 
world's  intellect  was  a  thing  unfelt,  unknown,  unsuspected. 
Into  no  written  sign  did  he  ever  put  a  thought,  a  sentiment,  a 
discovery,  a  message.  Into  his  savage  life,  no  mental  bugle- 
blast  sounded.  Against  the  bars  of  human  limitations,  the  soul 
of  the  native  negro  never  beat.  If  he  ever  had  an  aspiration 
which  soared  higher  than  the  conquering  of  some  neighboring 
tribe,  the  possession  of  more  cows,  and  a  plentiful  supply  of 
wives,  the  world  does  not  know  it. 

Nature  gave  him  a  noble  heritage  in  minerals,  in  timber,  in 
water-power,  in  precious  metals — but  he  never  showed  the 
slightest  sign'  of  appreciation.  From  highest  to  lowest,  the 
negro  lived  for  the  day,  to  gratify  the  appetites  of  the  day, 
to  revel  in  the  lusts  of  the  day. 

For  the  past,  he  cared  nothing.  His  life  was  bounded  by 
the  Present  tense.  He  had  no  ideals  that  called  for  labor  and 
for  sacrifice,  to  the  end  that  the  world  might  be  made  better. 

Their  great  King  was  Chaka — a  monster  of  ferocity  and 
sexuality  who  reminds  one  of  the  brutes  who  ruled  and  rav- 
aged Haiti  after  the  downfall  of  the  French  regime.  Chaka 
was  just  a  human  beast,  of  tremendous  force,  whose  soul 
seemed  possessed  of  the  devils  of  war,  rapine,  slaughter  and 
lust.  His  bloody  career  cost  the  lives  of  probably  a  million 
human  beings,  of  his  own  race  ;  and  if  he  was  moved  by  any- 
thing but  the  passion  for  killing,  destroying  and  extending  the 
realm  in  which  he  was  feared,  it  is  not  discoverable.  He 
founded  no  institutions,  spoke  of  none,  and  made  no  efforts  to 
lift  from  his  country  its  pall  of  barbarism. 

When  Chaka 's  mother  died  (poisoned  by  him,  it  was  said), 
he  elaborately  conducted  a  funeral  in  which  seven  thousand 
of  the  mourners  slew  each  other  in  their  frenzy.  In  the  grave, 
Chaka  put  ten  young  women  and  these  were  buried  alive,  along 
with  the  corpse  of  the  King's  mother.    (See  Fig.  17.) 

The  jealous  tyrant  could  not  bear  the  thought  of  death  for 
himself,  and  the  idea  of  having  an  heir  was  repugnant.  There- 
tore,  whenever  one  or  his  numerous  wives  gave  evidence  of 
being  with  child,  Chaka  put  her  to  death.  (And  this  was  a 
Nineteenth  Century  King  ! ) 

Another  negro  King,  M'tesa,  who  reigned  in  the  19th  cen- 
tury, amazed  even  the  English  by  his  atrocities.  For  any 
trifle  that  displeased  him,  his  subjects  were  killed.  Like 
Chaka,  he  was  a  monster  of  lust,  and  a  succession  of  fresh 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


115 


wives  was  a  royal  necessity.  To  escape  the  encumbrance  of 
too  large  a  harem,  it  was  M'tesa's  practice  to  have  an  old  wife 
slaughtered  every  time  a  fresh  one  was  introduced. 

An  English  traveller  tells  of  being  present  when  four  of  the 


FIG.  17.    BURIAL  OF  CHAKA'S  MOTHER. 


wives  of  M'tesa  offered  him  their  four  young  sisters.  He 
accepted  the  four,  married  them  by  the  simple  ceremony  of 
sitting  in  their  laps,  hugging  them,  and  rubbing  his  neck 
against  theirs.  This  being  done,  he  picked  out  four  wives 
that  he  was  tired  of  and  ordered  them  to  instant  execution. 
This  was  in  the  year  1861. 

In  the  last  of  the  exploring  expeditions. — those  of  Grant. 
Speke.  Baker  and  Stanley — we  find  the  same  frightful  condi- 
tions which  were  revealed  to  the  Ambassides.  thirteen  hundred 
years  ago.  when  that  division  of  the  Arab  race  crossed  the 
deserts,  to  escape  the  Ommiades  of  the  Barbary  States.  And 


116  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


the  conditions  as  found  by  the  Ambassides  in  the  seventh 
century,  were  precisely  the  same  that  existed  before  Christ. 

At  the  time  of  the  latest  Stanley  exploration,  husbands 
would  sell  their  wives,  and  fathers,  their  daughters.  For  a 
few  needles,  or  an  elephant's  tooth,  or  a  few  cows,  the  belle 
of  the  tribe  could  be  bought, — by  any  white  man,  or  any 
colored  man. 

At  this  very  day,  Englishmen  buy  young  negro  women,  to 
attend  them  on  hunting  or  exploring  trips,  the  price  ranging 
from  $100  to  $200. 

The  young  white  men  of  one  of  the  French  expeditions 
pleased  one  of  the  negro  chiefs  very  much  by  frankly  admiring 
his  numerous  wives.  After  these  white  men  and  these  negro 
women  had  almost  publicly  broken  a  certain  Commandment, 
the  Chief  and  husband  openly  expressed  his  gratification! 
He  took  the  white  men's  act  as  a  tribute  to  his  good  taste  in 
the  selection  of  his  wives. 

In  the  expedition  of  Sir  Samuel  Baker  were  some  white 
musicians.  Whenever  this  band  would  start  up  their  music, 
troops  of  negro  women,  stark  naked,  would  surround  them, 
dancing  in  ecstacy,  and  with  no  sense  of  feminine  shame. 

Different  from  the  white  race  in  physical  and  mental  struc- 
ture, the  negro  differs  even  more  radically  in  the  matter  of 
morals.  The  typical  negro  has  no  conception  of  chastity,— 
none  whatever.  The  men  do  not  have  it,  and  the  women  are 
without  it.    Of  principles,  of  virtue,  they  are  wholly  devoid. 


Note: — "A  few  days  before  the  departure  of  Speke  and  Grant 
from  M'tesa's  palace,  one  of  his  officers,  K'yengo,  informed  him 
that,  considering  the  surprising  events  which  had  lately  occurred 
at  court,  the  king  being  anxious  to  pry  into  the  future,  had 
resolved  upon  a  very  strange  measure  for  accomplishing  that  end. 
This  was  the  sacrifice  of  a  child  by  cooking,  and  K'yengo  was 
detailed  to  perform  the  barbarous  ceremony,  which  is  described  as 
follows:  The  doctor  places  a  large  earthen  vessel,  half  full  of 
water,  over  a  fire,  and  over  its  mouth  a  grating  of  sticks,  whereon 
he  lays  a  small  child  and  a  fowl  side  by  side,  and  covers  them  over 
with  a  large  earthen  vessel,  just  like  the  first,  only  inverted,  to 
keep  the  steam  in,  when  he  sets  fire  below,  cooks  for  a  certain 
period  of  time,  and  then  looks  to  see  if  his  victims  are  still  living 
or  dead.  If  dead,  as  they  usually  are,  the  omen  is  considered  pro- 
pitious, and  the  king  at  once  proceeds  upon  whatever  enterprise  he 
may  have  been  contemplating. 

"After  nearly  three  months  spent  with  M'tesa,  Speke  and  Grant 
prepared  to  leave  Uganda  for  the  Lake  Victoria,  an  event  which 
both  the  king  and  his  visitors  alike  regretted,  for  notwithstanding 
his  incredible  cruelties  to  his  subjects  he  was  really  obsequious  in 
his  attentions  to  his  distinguished  guests,  who  hoped,  through  the 
.great  influence  which  they  exerted  over  him,  to  induce  him  to 
abandon  his  inhuman  practices.  In  this  hope  they  so  signally 
failed  that  on  the  very  day  of  their  departure  one  of  the  monster's 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  117 

They  think  no  more  of  the  congress  of  the  sexes  than  they  do 
of  the  breeding  of  the  beasts.  To  yield  to  a  natural  appetite 
of  that  kind  is,  to  them,  no  more  of  a  vice  than  to  eat  when 
hungry  and  to  drink  when  dry.    (See  appendix  A.) 

This  lack  of  the  sense  of  personal  morality  is  one  of  the 
chief  characteristics  of  the  negro  now !  A  hideous,  ominous, 
national  menace ! 

As  to  cannibalism,  the  story  is  too  horrible  to  be  dwelt  upon ; 
the  reader  is  referred  to  note  below  and  to  Appendix  B. 

As  to  their  Religion, — they  have  never  had  any.  The  Indian 
had  his  God  and  a  heaven ;  the  negro  had  neither.  He  offered 
up  no  prayer,  for  he  had  no  sense  of  moral  responsibility. 
There  were  no  angels  for  the  negro, — nothing  but  evil  spirits, 


wives  passed  Speke  and  Grant  with  her  hands  clasped  at  the  back 
of  her  head  and  crying  in  a  most  pitiful  manner.  She  was  pre- 
ceded by  the  executioner,  who  was  not  permitted  to  touch  her.  She 
loved  to  obey  her  king  and  husband,  and  in  consequence  of  her 
loving  attachment  she  was  permitted,  as  a  mark  of  distinction,  to 
walk  unattended  to  the  place  of  her  death." 

(February  26th,  1888.) 

"I  went  this  morning  to  Nassibul's  camp,  which  is  situated  about 
an  hour's  march  from  our  own  camp  on  the  Falls  (Aruwimi).  He 
received  me  with  much  ceremony,  and  at  my  request  drummed  to 
the  natives,  who  were  in  two  clearings  at  the  back  of  his  camp.  A 
number  came  and  went  through  the  usual  demonstrations  at  seeing 
a  white  man.  Among  them  were  about  a  dozen  young  women,  with 
pleasing  countenances  and  beautifully  moulded  limbs.  They  would 
have  made  worthy  models  for  a  sculptor.  I  selected  a  man  as  a 
model  for  myself,  but  it  was  very  difficult  to  induce  him  to  stand 
still  while  I  sketched  him.  I  then  started  for  their  village  with 
Majuta,  Mr.  Jameson's  boy,  carrying  my  bag,  and  Fida,  a  native 
woman,  who  has  been  with  the  Arabs  for  some  time,  to  interpret 
from  Swahili  into  the  native  language. 

"Almost  the  first  man  I  saw  was  carrying  four  lumps  of  human 
flesh  (with  the  skin  on)  on  a  stick,  and  through  Fida  I  found  that 
they  had  killed  a  man  this  morning  and  had  divided  the  flesh. 
She  took  me  over  to  a  house  where  some  half-dozen  men  were 
squatting,  and  showed  me  more  meat  on  sticks  in  front  of  a  fire; 
it  was  frizzling  and  the  yellow  fat  was  dripping  from  it,  whilst  all 
around  was  a  strong  odor  which  reminded  me  of  the  smell  given 
out  by  grilled  elephant  meat.  It  was  not  yet  the  general  meal-time, 
they  told  me,  but  one  or  two  of  the  natives  cut  off  pieces  of  the 
frizzling  flesh  and  ate  it,  laughing  at  Majuta,  who,  being  disgusted, 
held  his  nose  and  backed  into  the  brush.  I  spoke  with  the  natives, 
through  Fida,  and  they  told  me  from  what  parts  the  meat  was  cut. 
One  tall,  sturdy  native  was  quietly  leaning  against  a  tree  and  pick- 
ing off  pieces  of  flesh  from  a  thigh  bone  with  good  relish.  Other 
dainty  joints  were  grilling  at  the  fire.  I  send  you  a  sketch  of  the 
scene,  and  some  day  hope  to  tell  you  all  the  horrible  details  of  the 
cannibal  habits  and  customs  which  prevail  in  this  strange  country." 

For  further  information  see  Appendix  B. 


118  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


malignant  demons,  haunts,  sorcery,  and  devils  little  and  big. 
Of  all  the  black,  stupid  and  fearful  superstitions  that  ever 
enslaved  human  beings,  that  of  the  negro  was  the  worst  and 
the  lowest. 

The  King  was  Law ;  the  priest  was  Religion.  To  these  two, 
everything  and  everybody  belonged.  If  the  King  wanted  a 
subject's  cow,  he  took  it;  if  his  daughter,  he  took  her.  And 
when  the  King  wanted  a  subject  killed,  he  either  sent  his 
executioner  to  do  the  job,  off  hand;  or,  if  there  was  some 
reason  why  this  plan  was  not  best,  he  would  have  his  Witch 
Doctor  to  "smell  out"  the  victims, — after  which  they  were 
summarily  executed.  There  were  no  forms  of  trial  whatever, — 
no  barrier  between  the  King's  will  and  the  subject's  life. 

To  ward  off  the  attacks  of  evil  spirits,  the  negro,  from  king 
down  to  meanest  subject,  was  ready  to  offer  up  any  sacrifice. 
Their  cattle,  their  sons,  their  daughters,  their  little  babes — 
they  would  give  anything  the  priest  demanded.  Such  was 
the  practice  of  thousands  of  years  ago;  such  is  the  practice  at 
this  day. 

No  wonder  that  Darwin  and  Haeckel  pronounce  this  the 
lowest  of  races,  different  radically  in  body,  brain  and  spirit 
from  the  Caucasian,  inferior  to  it,  and  incapable  of  a  true 
inner  culture  and  of  a  higher  mental  development,  even  under 
the  favorable  conditions  in  the  United  States  of  North  Amer- 
ica. No  woolly-haired  nation  has  ever  had  an  important 
history. 

No  wonder  that  travellers  and  missionaries  who  have  lived 
among  the  natives  of  the  Congo  and  the  upper  Nile  declare 
that  they  cannot  look  upon  the  negro  as  "a  man  and  a  brother." 

No  white  race  of  ancient  times  ever  so  regarded  him.  Every 
Aryan  people  that  ever  came  in  contact  with  him  regarded 
him  as  an  inferior.  Greeks  and  Romans  used  him  as  a  slave, 
just  as  modern  nations  have  done;  and  history  does  not  accuse* 
either  Greece  or  Rome  of  kidnapping  and  slave-ship  bar- 
barities. Negro  chiefs  were  just  as  ready  to  sell  their  subjects 
into  slavery  two  thousand  years  ago,  as  they  were  when 
Rhode  Island  was  the  banner  State  of  the  slave  trade. 

The  Aryan  Hindus  would  never  admit  the  negro  to  equality 
with  themselves.  He  was  their  slave,  and  they  made  him 
keep  his  place.  The  Brahman  would  have  killed  his  children 
rather  than  allow  them  to  marry  negroes  and  thus  pollute  the 
purity  of  the  higher  caste. 

When  apostles  of  Social  Equality  and  miscegenation  are 
sent  out  at  the  expense  of  the  National  Democratic  Committee 
to  preach  their  damnable  doctrines  under  the  thin  disguise 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc.  119 


of  making  speeches  for  Bryan :  and  when  the  Xational  Demo- 
cratic Party  becomes  the  personal  asset  of  an  Illinois-born, 
perpetual  Presidential  candidate,  who.  as  a  matter  of  choice, 
educated  his  own  daughter  and  sons  on  a  plan  of  Social 
Equality  with  negroes,  it  would  appear  to  be  high  time  for 
the  people  of  this  country  to  wake  up.  There  is  a  danger  at 
the  door  which  dwarfs  all  others. 

As  was  forcefully  said  by  the  Eight  Honorable  James  Bryce 
(  more  to  be  honored  because  of  his  books  than  because  he  is 
Ambassador  of  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States)  this  ques- 
tion of  a  hybrid  race  concerns  the  whole  of  mankind.  Says 
Mr.  Bryce : 

"The  matter  ought  to  be  regarded  from  the  side  neither  oi 
the  white  nor  of  the  black,  but  of  the  future  of  mankind  at 
large.  Xow  for  the  future  of  mankind  nothing  is  more  vital 
than  that  some  races  should  be  maintained  at  the  highest 
level  of  efficiency,  because  the  work  they  can  do  for  thought 
and  art  and  letters,  for  scientific  discovery,  and  for  raising 
the  standard  of  conduct,  will  determine  the  general  progress 
of  humanity.  If  therefore  we  were  to  suppose  the  blood  oi 
the  races  which  are  now  most  advanced  to  be  diluted,  so  to 
speak,  by  that  of  the  most  backward,  not  only  would  more  be 
lost  to  the  former  than  would  be  gained  to  the  latter,  but  there 
would  be  a  loss,  possibly  an  irreparable  loss,  to  the  world  at 
large." 

IV. 

It  has  long  been  known  that  ruins,  attesting  the  existence 
of  ancient  civilization,  were  to  be  found  in  the  interior  of 
Africa.  Rider  Haggard  used  this  fact  as  a  romantic  basis  for 
his  most  popular  novel.  Archaeologists  are  even  now  making 
further  progress  in  unearthing  evidence  of  this  obsolete  empire. 

But  what  of  it  \  Roman  remains  in  England  do  not  prove 
that  the  British  once  had  a  civilization,  and  then  lost  it. 
Remains  of  Moorish  splendor,  in  Spain,  prove  nothing  for  the 
Spaniards. 

Central  America  once  had  a  civilization  whose  ruins  are  now 
surrounded  by  the  tropical  wilderness:  but  nobody  contends 
that  this  civilization  was  developed  and  then  lost  by  the 
natives  who  possessed  the  land  at  the  time  of  Columbus. 

Throughout  Syria  are  mournful  memorials  of  former  gran- 
deur.— but  who  would  assert  that  these  mighty  ruins  prove  the 
remote  civilization  of  the  Arab,  or  the  Turk? 

The  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris  are  lined  with  evidences  ol 
the  power  and  culture  of  the  empires  which  once  flourished  in 
Mesopotamia, — but  what  connection  had  they  with  the  anees- 


120  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


tors  of  the  robbers  and  marauders  who  now  infest  those 

deserts  ? 

As  Volney  did,  a  traveler  of  the  past  day  may  wend  his 
way  to  the  Orient,  may  wander  amid  monuments  of  the  past, 
wrecks  of  temples,  palaces,  fortresses,  acqueducts  and  tombs; 
may  linger  along  the  Orontes  and  recall  the  imperial  argosies 
that  once  floated  upon  its  bosom;  may  visit  Palmyra  and 
rebuild,  in  fancy,  the  magnificent  city  of  Odenathus  and  Zeno- 
bia;  may  seat  himself  "upon  a  shaft  of  a  column"  and  con- 
template the  moonlit,  "stupendous  ruins" — -a  countless  multi- 
tude of  cornices,  capitals,  shafts,  pilasters,  entablatures,  "all 
and  deep  and  depressing  as  such  a  traveler's  musings  may  be, 
never  once  will  he  connect  with  the  dead  civilization  whose 
monuments  are  before  him,  the  wretched  Arab  peasants  whose 
hovels  are  built  within  the  area  of  those  ancient  palaces  and 
temples. 

Were  the  whites  of  Europe  and  of  these  United  States  to 
take  their  hands  off  Hayti,  and  allow  those  negroes  to  slide 
back  to  the  savagery  from  which  the  French  drew  them,  it  is 
very  easy  to  imagine  future  archaeologists,  visiting  that 
Island,  would  come  upon  a  lot  of  man-eating,  fetich-worship- 
ing negroes,  who  would  not  even  remember  the  civilization 
which  France  once  developed  there.  Digging  down  under- 
neath the  surface  of  things,  the  archaeologist  would  discover 
the  traces  of  this  magnificent  French  civilization.  If  he  were 
then  to  believe  that  the  negroes  whom  he  found  around  him 
were  the  originators  of  that  lost  civilization,  his  case  would  be 
just  as  strong  as  that  made  by  such  writers  as  Mr.  Brisbane 
and  Ella  Wheeler  Wilcox. 

It  is  a  mere  truism  to  state  that  nations  have  their  infancy, 
their  youth,  their  manhood,  their  old  age,  their  decay  and 
death,  just  as  individuals  have;  and  it  is  usually  the  case  that 
an  enervated  empire  is  stamped  out  by  hardy  barbarians  who 
rear  a  new  civilization  upon  the  ruins  of  the  old.  It  is  by  no 
means  improbable  that  the  Ayran  or  the  Semitic  races  were 
once  represented,  splendidly,  in  what,  for  ages,  has  been 
Darkest  Africa. 

On  the  Mediterranean  coast  of  Africa,  there  were  at  a  very 
early  period,  civilized  Semitic  States.  It  is  probable  that 
Aryan  and  Semitic  peoples  penetrated  the  interior  of  the 
continent,  and  there  established  empires.  These  may  have 
decayed,  in  the  course  of  ages,  and  may  have  been  destroyed 
by  hardier  men,  even  as  Rome  fell  before  the  Northmen.  Of 
the  existence  of  such  empires,  however,  the  negroes,  who  have 
inhabited  Africa  from  the  earliest  dawn  of  history,  do  not 
even  possess  a  vague  tradition. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc.  121 


Now.  it  must  be  apparent  to  all  that  no  people  who  had 
once  evolved  a  civilization,  could,  while  living  in  the  same 
territory,  not  only  lose  the  civilization  itself,  but  lose,  also, 
even  the  faintest  recollection  of  it.  Such  a  thing  is  absolutely 
incredible, — Ella  Wheeler  Wilcox  to  the  contrary,  notwith- 
standing. 

The  negro  in  Africa  not  only  has  no  legend  of  a  lost  civiliza- 
tion, but  he  has  no  tradition  of  the  Deluge.  In  that  respect, 
as  in  many  others,  he  proves  himself  to  be  on  the  same  racial 
plane  as  the  native  Australian. 

V. 

Leave  the  negro  to  himself,  and  cycles  sweep  by,  empires  rise 
and  fall,  races  appear  and  disappear. — the  negro  undergoing 
no  change,  making  no  advance,  and  dreaming  of  none.  Inca- 
pable of  creative  thought,  cherishing  no  ideals,  having  no 
morals  and  no  principles,  having  no  hope  of  heaven  and  no 
fear  of  hell,  he  remains,  century  after  century,  the  neighbor 
of  the  gorilla  and  the  chimpanzee,  making  no  more  effort  at 
civilization  than  they  make. 

Age  after  age.  he  gives  his  cow.  or  his  child,  as  a  sacrifice  to 
some  evil  spirit  that  has  put  a  spell  on  him :  and  he  gives  him- 
self, his  son.  and  his  daughter  to  the  blood-thirsty  and  sensual 
beast  whom  he  calls  King. 

He  has  just  the  same  opportunities  to  emerge  from  bar- 
barism as  all  other  barbarians  have,  but  he  alone  makes  no 
effort  to  emerge. 

The  yellow  "men  and  the  brown  men  cease  to  be  savages; 
cease  to  be  barbarians:  evolve  a  civilization,  erect  temples, 
purify  their  religion,  rear  palaces,  refine  their  manners ;  adopt 
systems  of  jurisprudence,  of  government,  of  education:  develop 
arts  and  sciences.  Even  black  men.  not  negroes,  do  something 
of  the  same  sort.  Indeed,  the  ancient  civilization  of  the  Hindu 
and  the  Moor  was  the  very  highest  that  the  world  had  then 
known,  if  we  except  that  of  Greece.  And  the  moral  teachings 
of  ancient  Hindostan  were  not  inferior  to  those  of  any  nation 
of  antiquity. 

But  the  negro,  in  his  native  land,  sat  squat  in  his  degrada- 
tion, moved  by  no  inner  promptings  to  lift  himself  and  im- 
prove his  surroundings. 

Left  to  himself  a  barbarian.— he  will,  when  left  to  himself, 
lose  any  civilization  which  he  has  acquired. 

VI. 

God  knows.  I  hold  no  malice  in  my  heart  against  the  negro. 
Grand-children  of  my  grandfather's  slaves  are  living  on  land 


122  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


of  mine,  just  as  their  fathers  did.  There  isn't  a  black  man 
who  knows  me  that  would  hesitate  to  come  to  me  for  protec- 
tion, and  be  certain  of  getting  it.  In  his  contracts,  in  his 
property,  in  his  home  and  school  and  church,  in  his  absolute 
rights  as  a  human  being,  I  would  despise  myself  if  I  denied 
him  the  same  treatment  that  is  given  to  the  whites. 

It  is  only  when  he  claims  to  be  our  equal,  wants  to  thrust 
himself  into  our  social  life,  wants  to  claim  equality  in  political 
privileges,  wants  to  mingle  the  blood  of  his  race  with  the  blood 
of  ours,  wants  to  lower  the  standard  of  our  civilization  by 
mongrelizing  the  superior  race, — it  is  then  that  I  meet  him  in 
the  gate,  ready  for  battle. 

To  my  mind,  the  most  dangerous  doctrine  that  can  be 
preached  to  the  people  of  America  is  that  Social  Equality, 
mixed  marriages,  mixed  schools,  and  political  equality  offer 
the  solution  of  the  Negro  Question.  Experience  has  forced 
upon  me  the  conclusion  that  the  true  way  out  of  our  troubles 
is  to  give  to  the  negro,  fully  and  universally,  those  absolute 
rights  to  which  the  law  of  nature  is  said  to  give  to  every 
human  being.  But  political  privileges — voting  and  office- 
holding, — he  should  not  have  at  all.  To  exclude  him  utterly 
from  affairs  of  government,  would  mean  peace,  to  him  and  to 
us.  As  to  social  equality,  that  would  inevitably  breach  the 
walls  of  racial  purity.  Mixed  marriages  would  become  more 
common,  the  hybridizing  of  the  race  would  set  in,  and  nothing, 
then,  could  prevent  the  downward  movement  of  the  great 
Caucasian  race. 

The  well-meaning  but  mistaken  negro-petter  who  bemoans 
the  condition  of  the  negro,  and  laments  the  fact  that  he  was 
brought  away  from  Africa  and  put  into  slavery,  is  a  most 
absurd  creature.    His  talk  is  idiotic  twaddle. 

Had  not  the  African  kings  sold  off  the  surplus  of  their 
subjects,  the  negroes  who  were  brought  to  Europe  and  America 
might  have  been  cooked  and  eaten  by  hungry  friends,  offered 
up  as  a  sacrifice  to  placate  offended  "spirits,"  killed  in  battle 
by  neighboring  savages,  or  buried  alive  to  keep  company  in 
the  grave  with  some  member  of  a  royal  family,  or  starved 
miserably  in  some  season  of  famine.  Left  in  their  native 
country,  they  never  would  have  heard  of  God;  never  would 
have  heard  of  Christian  virtues,  Christian  lives,  Christian 
heaven,  nor  Christian  hell ;  never  would  have  known  what  it 
is  to  read,  write,  wear  store-clothes,  and  to  undress  in  the 
presence  of  white  ladies  in  a  Pullman  sleeping  car;  never 
would  have  felt  the  joys  of  being  electioneered,  of  voting,  of 
preaching,  of  passing  the  hat  around,  of  sitting  at  a  shoe- 
blacking  stand  and  reading  the  morning  paper,— "seegyar"  in 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


123 


mouth— while  a  little  white  boy  kneels  down  to  polish  his 
number  twelve :  never  would  have  known  what  it  is  to  ride  to 
the  polls  in  a  white  man's  automobile,  or  to  get  ten  cents  per 
vote  for  casting  twenty-odd  ballots  in  the  same  box  on  the 
same  day.  or  to  be  called  "Mister."  and  "Doctor."  and  "Pro- 
fessor." and  "Bishop."  or  to  be  town  councillor  for  a  village 
like  Baltimore.  Judge  in  a  hamlet  like  Chicago.  Custom 
House  boss  in  various  proud  American  cities,  and  IT.  S. 
Minister  to  states  like  Honduras  and  Haiti. 

Had  he  been  left  in  his  home  in  Africa,  the  negro  of  this 
land  of  the  free  and  the  freaks  would  never  have  known  the 
delicious  flavor  of  Federal  pap.  philanthropic  donations. 
Carnegie  dinners.  White  House  receptions  and  Presidential 
luncheons:  never  would  have  known  how  good  it  felt  to  send 
a  white  girl  to  prison  because  of  her  refusal  to  wait  on  him 
in  a  restaurant,  or  to  see  his  children  educated  at  the  expense 
of  white  men  whose  own  children  are  in  the  cotton  field  and 
the  cotton  mill,  or  to  read  an  editorial  in  a  Hearst  newspaper 
reminding  him  that  his  ancestors  laid  the  foundations  of 
modern  civilization  at  a  time  when  ours  were  "gibbering 
savages." 

Had  he  not  been  purchased  from  his  King  and  brought  to 
this  country,  what  good  things  our  negroes  would  have  missed ! 
Funerals,  in  whose  enjoyment  there  are  no  fears  of  being 
buried  alive  as  company  to  the  deceased :  Excursions,  with  the 
luscious  delights  of  plenty  of  whisky  and  plenty  of  women 
and  plenty  of  time :  Hot  Suppers,  beginning  with  a  wild  frolic 
and  winding  up  with  gun  play  and  razors  in  the  air :  Revi- 
vals, runnnig  by  the  month,  and  climaxing  in  the  riotous 
"Comin'  throws;''  Secret  Societies,  where  colored  gentlemen 
instruct  colored  audiences  in  the  gentle  art  of  making  them- 
selves intolerable  to  white  people :  Free  Lectures,  by  speakers 
who  are  paid  by  Lncle  Sam  to  inform  the  Afro-American 
that  Hannibal  was  a  nigger.  Cleopatra,  a  niggeress.  and  Sap- 
pho, a  "mulatto.'' 

Poor,  downtrodden  American  negro !  "We  brought  him 
here."  tearfully  and  contritely  confess  the  white  negro-philes 
who  expiate  so  nobly  on  the  duties  which  we  owe  the  negro. 

How  ridiculous !  The  truth  is  that  his  position  as  a  slave 
was  better  than  anything  he  had  ever  known  at  home.  It  was 
others  who  made  themselves  miserable  about  it.  His  main 
objection  to  slavery  was  that  it  made  him  work,  regularly. 
Save  in  rare  cases,  he  showed  no  disposition  to  "run  away." 
He  was  generally  well-fed. '  well-clothed,  well-housed,  well- 
treated.  In  exceptional  instances,  he  might  have  had  a  master 
who  was  as  cruel  as  the  chieftain  of  his  tribe,  but  this  did  not 
happen  often.    Occassionally.  he  may  have  had  as  rough  a 


124  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

time  as  he  was  accustomed  to  at  home,  but  this  was  seldom 
the  case. 

Why  was  it  that  Abolition  plotters  could  never  goad  the 
slaves  to  revolt?  Because  the  negroes  did  not  crave  emanci- 
pation. Why  did  they  remain  quiet  during  the  war  ?  Because, 
as  a  whole,  they  were  content.  Therefore,  the  John  Brown 
raid  was  a  miserable  fiasco. 

In  Africa  the  negroes  had  never  been  free.  They  held  life 
and  property  at  the  pleasure  of  cruel,  jealous,  capricious  kings. 
The  shadow  of  death  hung  over  them,  all  the  time.  No  mem- 
ber of  the  tribe  knew  what  moment  some  look,  word  or  act 
of  his  might  enrage  his  chief  and  cost  his  life. 

It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  number  of  negroes  who  "run 
away"  from  their  own  chiefs,  and  take  refuge  in  Dutch  and 
English  settlements  in  Africa,  is  larger  than  the  number  of 
fugitive  slaves  that  formerly  escaped  from  the  Southern 
owners  by  the  "Underground  Railway!" 

Contact  with  us  improved  him;  and  a  process  of  gradual 
emancipation  was  lifting  him  to  a  higher  plane,  when  a  lot  of 
madmen — who  supposed  themselves  to  be  statesmen — played 
into  the  hands  of  fanatics,  kindled  the  hell-fires  of  sectional 
hate,  and  let  slip  the  dogs  of  war. 

Four  millions  of  people,  who  had  recently  been  "gibbering 
savages,"  were  given  their  freedom  so  suddenly  that  they  did 
not  know  what  to  do  with  it.  This  being  the  case,  the  vindic- 
tive rage  of  such  men  as  Thad  Stevens  and  Charles  Sumner 
brought  forth  the  Reconstruction  laws,  and  the  14th  and  15th 
Amendments.  These  acts  of  legislation  were  ambitious  efforts 
to  do  something  which  the  Almighty  alone  could  have  done — 
to  make  a  mass  of  ignorant  negroes  the  equal  of  a  mass  of 
civilized  Caucasians. 

The  effort  was  a  crime,  the  experiment  a  calamity. 

But  the  triumph  of  the  Southern  whites  in  throwing  off  the 
yoke  of  Northern  oppression  and  negro  domination  ought  to 
forever  settle  two  questions: 

(1)  Local  self-government  is,  with  the  Indo-Germanic 
peoples,  a  primitive  instinct,  an  imperishable  principle,  an 
unconquerable  ideal; 

(2)  The  superiority  of  the  Aryan  will  assert  itself,  no 
matter  how  overwhelming  may  seem  to  be  the  odds  against 
him. 

A  final  word  and  I  am  done :  the  natural  repugnance  of  our 
race  to  equality  of  social  relations  with  the  negroes  is  the 
instinct  of  racial  self-preservation.  It  is  God-given,  and  its 
purpose  is  the  high  and  holy  one  of  keeping  pure  the  blood 
of  our  superior  race.  To  do  this  is  best  for  us,  best  for  the 
negro,  best  for  our  country,  best  for  mankind. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


125 


Appendix  A. 

"In  certain  tribes  of  Central  Africa  both  boys  and  girls  after 
initiation"  (circumcism  and  excision)  "must  as  soon  as  possible 
have  intercourse,  the  belief  being  that  if  they  do  not  they  will  die. 
Xarrinyeri  boys  during  initiation  after  the  preliminary  rites  had 
complete  license  as  regards  unmarried  females,  not  only  such  as 
they  might  lawfully  marry,  but  even  those  of  their  own  clan  and 
totem.  After  the  seclusion  of  a  Kaffir  girl  at  puberty,  she  is 
allowed  to  cohabit  with  anyone  during  a  festal  period  which  fol- 
lows; and  Kaffir  boys  after  being  circumcised  are  allowed  to  seize 
any  unmarried  women  they  please,  and  have  connection  with  them. 
A  similar  custom  is  found  on  the  Congo.  The  Muhammadan 
negroes  of  the  Sengal  are  circumcised  at  fourteen.  They  are 
looked  after  for  a  month,  during  which  time  they  walk  about  in  a 
procession.  'They  may  commit  during  this  period  any  violence 
against  girls,  except  rape  and  murder.'  After  the  month  is  up, 
they  are  men.  A  Zulu  girl  at  puberty  goes  through  a  ceremonial 
process.  Secluded  in  a  special  hut,  she  is  attended  by  twelve  or 
fourteen  girls.  'No  married  man  may  come  near  the  dwelling,  and 
should  anyone  do  so  he  is  beaten  away  by  the  girls,  who  attack 
him  most  viciously  with  sticks  and  stones.  During  her  seclusion 
the  neophyte  must  on  no  account  see  or  address  any  man,  married 
or  unmarried.'  At  the  end  of  the  period  a  number  of  girls  and 
unmarried  men  have  intercourse  in  the  hut.  After  a  further  period 
of  seclusion  the  girl  bathes  and  is  'clean,'  and  after  the  perforation 
of  the  hymen  by  two  old  women,  she  is  a  woman.  After  initiation 
to  the  warrior's  set,  El-Moran,  the  Masai  young  men  associated 
freely  with  girls;  in  fact  each  El-Moran  had  a  woman  who  went 
about  with  him." 

(From  "A  Study  of  Primitive  Marriage,"  by  Earnest  Crawley, 
M.  A.) 

'Appendix  B. 

"The  king  of  Gnongo  ruled  a  small  but  very  powerful  and  very 
populous  country,  and  was  the  terror  of  all  his  neighbors  to  the 
North  and  West  by  reason  of  the  number  and  ferocity  of  the  slave- 
raids  that  started  from  his  dominions,  and  were  almost  invariably 
successful.  The  whole  religion  of  these  people  necessitated  attacks 
upon  their  neighbors,  for  its  basis  was  constant  human  sacrifice, 
and  the  simple  law  of  self-preservation  taught  the  Gnongos.  for 
their  own  safety,  always  to  keep  at  hand  a  goodly  supply  of  the 
necessary  victims.  The  true  history  of  the  place  would  be  a  dismal 
record  of  ruthless  and  brutal  doings  to  death  of  human  beings,  often 
apparently  for  no  reason  whatever  except  to  satisfy  a  ghoulish 
craving  for  the  sight  of  human  blood  flowing  fresh,  or  blackening, 
clotted  and  nasty  in  the  open,  in  the  town,  in  street,  in  square,  in 
court-yard — nay,  upon  the  very  household  utensils  themselves. 

"  'On  this,  the  third  day,  were  to  be  erected  with  all  the  proper 
ceremonies  the  six  main  uprights  of  the  new  Juju  House.  The 
reason,  or  even  the  simple  mythology  of  these  acts,  it  is  hopeless 
to  expect;  one  might  as  well  hope  to  learn  the  mythology  of  mon- 
keys; though  verily,  I  believe,  the  daily  annals  of  a  collection  of 
the  higher  quadrumana  would  be  more  sane  and  cleanly  and  far 
less  bloodthirsty  than  those  of  the  baser,  lower  bimana. 


126  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


"  'But  now  it  was  time  for  things  to  begin,  and  as  etiquette, 
dangerous  to  evade,  constrained  all  to  take  part  in  the  ceremonies, 
fasting,  so  far  as  a  solid  meal  was  concerned,  all  real  eating  and 
drinking  had  to  be  deferred  till  the  proceedings  of  the  day  were 
concluded. 

"  'There  appeared  to  be  no  regular  commencement,  but,  seemingly 
by  a  kind  of  general  impulse,  drums  began  to  be  beaten,  horns 
blown,  and  trade  muskets  discharged  in  the  air.  Then  cows'  horns, 
filled  with  powder  and  tamped  with  clay,  were  fired  off  with  a 
thundering  report  and  considerable  danger  to  the  neighbors,  and, 
with  the  exception  of  the  king,  who  practically  never  appeared  in 
public,  and  of  his  immediate  attendants,  the  whole  population  of 
the  town  flocked  to  the  spot  where  the  ghastly  preparations  were 
already  well  advanced. 

"  'The  priests  and  the  warriors  and  women  gathered  in  a  great 
circle  round  the  pits;  the  slaves  who  had  carried  the  victims  from 
the  town,  bound  hand  and  foot  to  poles  and  rolled  in  cheap  calico, 
at  a  sign  came  forward  and  laid  them  two  and  two  beside  each 
excavation,  one  man  and  one  woman  to  each.  Cutting  the  lashings 
that  secured  them  to  the  poles,  they  took  these  away.  Then  one  of 
the  priests  began  a  sort  of  exhortation  to  the  people,  telling  them 
which  would  be  for  the  general  benefit;  then,  after  animadverting 
upon  the  crucifixions  of  the  young  women  that  had  taken  place  two 
days  previously  for  the  prevention  of  famine  and  drought,  he 
referred  to  the  head-cutting  of  the  day  before,  and  declared  that 
the  auguries  drawn  from  the  positions  in  which  the  heads  had 
fallen  had  been  most  favorable,  that  the  posts  of  the  Juju  House 
were  about  to  be  set  up  in  accordance  with  them,  that  the  heads 
would  be  fixed  upon  the  building,  and  would  bring  great  luck,  and, 
to  prevent  and  minimize  occurrences  of  such  evil  omen  for  the 
coming  year,  those  women  who  had  borne  twins  in  his  majesty's 
dominions  during  the  year  gone  by  would  now  be  buried  alive  in 
the  hole  in  the  center  of  the  house,  over  which,  when  a  proper 
dwelling-place  had  been  provided,  a  most  powerful  Juju  would  pre- 
side. He  ended  by  saying  that  the  king  had  given  orders  for  a 
great  feast  to  conclude  the  three  days'  proceedings,  and  that  his 
royal  bounty  had  provided  for  his  people  a  more  than  usually  liberal 
dole  of  rum  and  palm  wine. 

"  'He  finished  amid  the  frantic  applause  of  the  crowd  and  more 
discharging  of  muskets  and  banging  of  drums. 

"  Now  the  warriors  got  into  some  sort  of  order  in  front  and 
began  to  chant  a  monotonous  song  or  hymn,  to  which  the  women 
marked  a  rude  time  by  grunting  at  regular  intervals  and  slapping 
their  breasts  and  thighs. 

"  'While  this  hideous  anthem  was  being  sung,  the  executioner 
and  his  assistants  seized  the  victims  two  and  two  as  they  lay,  male 
and  female,  and  binding  them  face  to  face,  pitched  each  couple  into 
the  long  holes  lying  ready  excavated  beside  them.  This  done,  he 
and  his  daubed  and  painted  assistants  in  all  their  disgusting  para- 
phernalia of  charms  and  bones,  began  to  dance  about  the  pits, 
rattling  hollow  calabashes  full  of  small  nuts  and  seeds,  and  par- 
tially drowning  the  groans  and  screams  of  agony  that  proceeded 
from  the  wretched  beings  below. 

"  'But  now  arose  the  cry  of  "Rice-pounders!    Women!    O,  women, 
bring  your  rice-pounders!     Let  the  family  be  fruitful  and  the  year 
give  many  slaves!    Women!     O,  women,  bring  you  rice-pounders!" 
"  'These  words  were  shouted  and  yelled  by  the  warriors,  but 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


127 


promptly  taken  up  by  the  whole  crowd,  which,  wild  with  excite- 
ment, began  to  stamp  and  dance  with  gyratory  motion  about  the 
spot  occupied  by  the  executioner  and  his  assistants. 

"  'Several  scores  of  women  had  rushed  off  to  the  town  at  the 
first  words,  and  were  now  streaming  back,  each  one  armed  with 
her  rice-pounder,  or  hard,  heavy  wood,  about  three  inches  in  diame- 
ter and  six  feet  long,  shod  with  iron  at  the  lower  end.  As  they 
came  up  they  were  speedily  arranged  in  rows  round  the  pits,  and 
at  a  given  cry  from  the  warriors  and  the  cry  of  "Now,  O  women, 
pound  the  sacred  rice  to  feed  the  gods!"  they  commenced  pounding 
away  with  their  formidable  rammers  at  the  wretched  creatures 
below. 

"  'The  piercing  shrieks  that  immediately  rent  the  air  soon  ceased, 
and  soon,  save  for  a  low  groan  or  two,  no  sound  rose  from  the 
blood-stained  mortars  except  the  monotonous  beat-beat  of  the 
horrid  pestles. 

"  'But  while  the  women  pounded,  the  people  and  the  executioners 
yelled  and  danced  till  the  excitement  attained  a  frantic  pitch. 
Then,  suddenly  closing  in,  the  crowd  seized  the  great  pillars  lying 
on  the  ground,  hoisted  them  up  by  main  force  of  arms,  and,  plant- 
ing each  one  in  the  centre  of  the  gory  mass  below,  filled  in  the 
loose  earth  and  stones  about  them. 

"  'Not  till  the  earth  was  packed  hard  round  the  pillars-  and  level 
with  the  surface  of  the  surrounding  soil  did  the  women  cease  their 
ghastly  labor.  Then  they  stopped,  exhausted,  and  rolled  about, 
many  of  them  apparently  afflicted  with  a  species  of  epileptic  frenzy. 
(Just  such  a  frenzy  as  we  see  the  colored  women  exhibit  at  their 
religious  camp-meetings  and  church  services  in  the  United  States 
at  the  present  day. ) 

"  'At  once  each  became  the  centre  of  an  admiring  circle,  for  their 
frenzy  was  a  sign  of  good  omen,  a  sign  that  the  sacrifice  had  been 
accepted  with  pleasure  by  the  gods,  whose  spokeswomen  they  had 
now  become,  for  the  time  being,  at  least. 

"  'After  awhile  things  quieted  down;  the  crowd  once  more  became 
attentive,  for  the  final  ceremony  was  at  hand.  As  already  men- 
tioned, another  pit  had  been  excavated  in  the  centre  of  the  pillars, 
now  so  firmly  erected.  Alongside  this  centre  hole,  a  dozen  or 
more  miserable  women  were  dragged.  These  were  the  unfortunates 
who  had  given  birth  to  twins  during  the  previous  year  in  the 
king's  dominion,  and  so  brought  evil  upon  it.  One  of  the  priests 
gave  the  people  his  views  upon  the  subject,  views  that  will  hardly 
bear  reproduction  in  these  pages,  and  then  the  executioner,  carrying 
an  iron  bar  about  two  feet  long,  and  followed  by  his  assistants 
rolling  a  short  thick  log,  threw  the  women  down  one  after  another, 
and,  deliberately  smashing  their  arms  and  legs  in  two  places,  doubled 
them  up  behind  them  and  flung  the  poor  creatures  into  the  hole. 

"  'Not  a  sound  broke  the  silence,  save  the  screams  of  the  unfor- 
tunate victims  of  this  horrible  cruelty,  and  as  soon  as  the  last  of 
them  had  been  pitched,  shrieking,  into  the  pit,  the  earth  was  filled 
in  over  them  while  they  were  still  alive,  and  with  a  wild  shout  the 
whole  body  of  spectators  rushed  in  and  commenced  stamping  it  flat 
with  their  feet.  In  a  very  short  time  all  trace  of  the  excavation 
had  disappeared,  and  the  whole  space,  inclosed  by  the  uprights,  and 
even  several  feet  beyond  them,  was  tramped  smooth  and  flat  and 
as  hard  as  a  threshing  floor. 

"  'No  one  passing  could  have  guessed  at  the  terrible  crimes  which 


128  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


had  been  committed,  for  hardly  a  splash  of  blood  upon  the  pillars 
gave  evidence  of  them. 

"  'With  firing  of  muskets,  blowing  of  horns,  and  general  con- 
gratulations and  jollity,  with  praises,  yelled  and  chanted,  of  the 
goodness  of  their  king  and  his  liberality,  the  crowd  returned  to  the 
town,  the  women  to  prepare  the  evening  meal  and  make  such  festive 
arrangements  as  were  demanded  by  the  king's  orders,  the  men  to 
talk  over  the  day's  celebrations,  plan  future  schemes  of  blood  and 
rapine,  and  discuss  the  next  slave-catching  expedition,  all  separating 
later  on  to  secure  betimes  the  royal  dole  of  drink. 

"  'I  have  described  the  day,  the  night  I  will  leave  to  the  reader's 
imagination  and  to  its  fitting  veil  of  darkness.'  " 

(J.  Cameron  Grant's  "Ethiopia,"  19th  century  explorations.) 


The  Passing  of  Lucy  and  Rollo. 


Gentle  reader,  did  you  ever  steep  your  mind  in  one  of  those 
Sunday  School  books  which  were  in  circulation  previous  to 
our  Civil  War  \  If  not.  ransack  your  grandmother's  garret 
until  you  find  a  specimen  of  that  Arcadian  literature. 

The  little  boy  in  those  blessed  books  never  quarrelled,  never 
had  a  fight,  never  had  dirty  hands,  and  would  have  been  in- 
expressibly shocked  had  he  made  a  conversational  dip  in 
grammar.  He  was  an  intolerable  angel  in  breeches — was  this 
little  boy  of  the  Sunday  School  book.  He  couldn't  "talk  back." 
nor  handle  slang,  nor  throw  rocks,  nor  skin-the-cat.  nor  ride 
the  billy-goat,  nor  tie  things  to  a  dog's  tail,  nor  put  a  pin  in 
a  chair  for  somebody  to  sit  on.  If  the  Bad  Boy  hit  him  in  the 
stomach,  he  wejDt  meekly,  quoted  a  text,  and  went  home  to  his 
mamma. 

In  common  conversation,  the  language  of  this  Good  Boy 
was  drawn  from  wells  of  English  undefiled.  Erasmus  never 
used  choicer  words:  and  Chesterfield  was  not  more  perfect  in 
manners,  than  was  this  detestable  Good  Boy. 

Among  youths  of  his  own  age.  he  was  a  miniature  Socrates, 
washed  and  otherwise  purified.  Wisdom  oozed  from  him  in 
hateful  streams.  The  sagacity  of  sages  sat  on  him  with  un- 
canny ease. 

When  a  grown  man  spoke  to  this  Good  Boy.  the  G.  B.  never 
replied  until  he  had  lifted  his  right  hand  and  ejaculated  "Oh. 
Sir!"  After  the  salute  and  the  "Oh  Sir."  came  the  response, 
which  always  did  infinite  credit  to  the  manners,  mind  and 
heart  of  this  outrageously  Good  Boy. 

Life  was  an  easy-going  affair  to  the  G.  B.  All  things  came 
his  way.  He  was  virtuous  and  he  was  happy.  Nothing  ever 
occurred  to  soil  his  clothes  or  tangle  his  hair.  His  nose  never 
bled,  he  never  bit  his  tongue,  never  struck  his  funny-bone, 
never  hit  his  thumb  with  the  hammer,  never  had  his  drink  to  go 
the  wrong  way.  He  was  never  drowned  while  bathing  in  the 
pond,  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  didn't  "go  in"  on  the  Sab- 
bath. The  Bad  Boy  "went  in  washing"  on  Sunday  and  was 
drowned,  as  a  matter  of  course. 

Daniel  in  the  lion's  den  was  not  safer  amid  the  perils  than 
was  the  Good  Boy  among  the  ills  which  are  incident  to  boy- 
hood. Past  vicious  bulls  and  snappish  curs  he  walked  serene 
and  unharmed.  Neither  his  gun.  nor  his  pony  ever  kicked 
him:  neither  the  wasp,  nor  the  bee.  nor  the  yellow- jacket  ven- 
tured to  sting  him:  nettles  avoided  his  bare  feet:  no  boil  came 


130  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


to  afflict  his  nose,  nor  stye  to  distort  his  eye.  No  limb  of  a 
tree  ever  broke  under  him,  and  gave  him  a  nasty  fall.  He 
never  tumbled  into  the  creek,  nor  snagged  his  "pants,"  nor 
sprained  his  ankle,  nor  cut  his  finger,  nor  bumped  his  head,  nor 
walked  against  the  edge  of  the  door  at  night. 

Nothing  could  happen  to  this  insufferable  Good  Boy — 
nothing  bad,  I  mean.  His  shoes  never  blistered  his  heels,  his 
hat  never  bleAV  away,  he  never  lost  his  handkerchief,  never  had 
a  stone-bruise,  never  missed  his  lessons,  never  soiled  his  book, 
nver  played  tuant,  and  never  ate  anything  which  caused  him 
to  clap  both  hands  to  a  certain  place  in  front  while  he  doubled 
up  and  howled. 

Oh,  a  pink  of  perfection  was  this  odious"  boy  of  the  ante- 
bellum Sunday  School  books. 

And  next  to  him  in  comprehensive  unbearableness  was  the 
little  girl  who  was  the  counterpart  of  this  littlfe  boy. 

Her  name  was  Lucy.  Or,  perhaps,  Mariella.  Or,  for  the 
sake  of  variety,  Lucretia. 

And  what  a  portentous  proposition  in  pantalettes  she  was, 
to  be  sure ! 

She  talked  just  as  exquisitely  as  did  the  Good  Boy.  Her 
selection  of  words  was  artistic,  and  her  grammar  immaculate. 
^  If  William  Pitt's  natural  style  was  that  of  the  "State  Paper," 
the  colloquial  standard  of  Lucy,  Lucretia  and  Marielle  was 
that  of  Madame  de  Stael. 

She  walked  with  primness;  if  she  ran  at  all,  it  was  with 
dignity;  she  did  not  giggle,  did  not  romp,  never  made  a  mud 
pie,  never  pinched  the  Good  Boy,  and  was  such  a  formidable 
little  thing,  generally,  that  even  the  Bad  Boy  never  snatched 
her  bonnet.  Such  a  thought  as  that  of  stealing  a  kiss  from  her 
never  entered  the  head  of  any  boy,  good,  bad  or  indifferent. 

Times  have  changed,  manners  have  changed,  types  have 
changed.  What  is  responsible  for  the  bold-eyed  girl — the  girl 
of  loose  speech  and  loud  manners?  What  is  responsible  for 
the  irreverent  boy — the  boy  of  the  cigarette  and  of  the  look 
which  undresses  every  handsome  woman  that  he  meets  ?  These 
are  the  boys  that  greet  girls  with  a  "Hello !"  and  a  leer  that 
should  offend.  These  are  the  girls  who  shout  "Hello  !"  to  the 
boys  and  who  lie  prone  by  the  side  of  young  men  during  a 
"straw-ride"  at  night.  Are  all  such  maidens  the  daughters  of 
mothers  who  drink  and  gamble  ?  Are  all  such  youths  the  sons 
of  men  who  have  no  morals  ?  By  no  means.  Our  whole  social 
and  industrial  situation  has  changed,  and  the  people  have 
changed  with  it. 

Would  that  I  could  believe  that  our  Public  School  System 
is  guiltless  in  this  matter.  Use  your  eyes  as  you  pass  a  crowded 
academy  and  note  the  conditions  which  make  against  decency 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


131 


— to  say  nothing  of  that  deference  and  respect  with  which 
every  properly  trained  boy  should  treat  members  of  the 
other  sex. 

But  there  are  causes  deeper,  more  universal  than  the  promis- 
cuous mix-up  in  the  Public  Schools.  The  centripetal  power 
of  class  legislation  is  drawing  capital  inward  to  the  small 
centre  of  the  Privileged.  To  the  masses  is  left  a  constantly 
smaller  proportion  of  the  nation's  annual  production  of  wealth. 
In  turn,  this  law-made  and  abnormal  condition  of  things  over- 
crowds the  cities.  In  fact,  rural  life  has  become  so  unattrac- 
tive that  the  trend  of  population  is  from  the  farm  to  the  town. 


"ROLLO,  LUCY  AND  MARIETTA  AVE  XT  TOGETHER.'' 


Every  village  has  its  surplus — the  men  and  boys,  white  and 
black,  who  have  no  visible  means  of  support  and  who  cannot 
be  pursuaded  to  work.  In  every  town  is  the  girl  who  hardly 
knows  why  she's  there. — but  she's  there. 

And  the  pace-that-kills  in  the  Chicagos  and  New  Yorks  is 
|  faithfully  represented,  on  a  small  scale,  in  each  of  our  towns. 
Don't  all  of  us  know  it  \   We  do.   But  what  is  the  remedy? 

The  temperance  people  believe  that  whiskey  is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  trouble.  The  church  people  believe  that  irreligion  is 
the  source  of  the  evil.  The  school-teacher  believes  that  educa- 
tion will  save  the  day. 

But  can  not  the  student  of  human  affairs  see  that  the  de- 

6— Sketches 


132  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


I  moralization  incident  to  four  years  of  civil  strife  shook  our 
entire  social  system  like  an  earthquake?  Did  not  the  Spanish 
war  light  up— luridly,  vividly,  horribly, — the  most  universal 
corruption  which  had  seized  upon  the  body  politic  ? 

"Eat,  drink  and  be  merry — tomorrow  we  die."  When  a 
nation  rings  with  that  cry,  it  is  close  to  the  whirlpool.  "Let 
us  have  a  good  time!"  The  man  drinks  and  makes  much  of 
his  food ;  the  woman  drinks  and  thinks  a  deal  about  her  eating ; 
the  boy  drinks  and  knows  the  good  dishes ;  the  girl  drinks  and 
daintily  scans  the  menu.    "Hello!"  shouts  the  dashing  boy; 


"OH!  LOOK,"  CRIED  LUCY. 


"Hello !"  answers  the  dashing  girl,  and  off  they  hurry  to  some 
place  where  talk,  songs,  pictures  and  conduct  are  "up-to-date," 
— and  in  many  and  many  a  case  the  Hello  couple  are  reeling 
hellward  by  midnight. 

Don't  we  know  that  our  national  statute-book  is  the  Iliad 
of  our  woes? 

The  few  are  wickedly  rich  while  the  many  are  helplessly 
poor,  because  the  laws  have  been  made  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  about  that  very  state  of  affairs.  There  is  a  fierce 
struggle  for  existence  which  waxes  more  desperate  every  year. 
Men  fight  each  other  for  a  job,  with  a  ferocity  like  that  of 
starving  dogs  fighting  over  a  bone.  Girls  are  forced  into  posi- 
tions where  delicacy  of  feeling  is  trampled  out  and  where  it 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  133 


requires  heroic  courage  to  resist  the  tempters  who  are  ever  on 
her  trail  to  pull  her  down. 

Who  does  not  know  that  the  ten  million  dollars  which  one 
of  our  religious  denominations  recently  sent  abroad  for  For- 
eign Missions  would  be  better  employed  if  it  were  devoted  to 
the  breaking  up  of  our  hideous  marketing  of  white  women  to 
lewd  houses  ?  Who  does  not  feel  that  the  hundreds  of  millions 
which  our  Government  has  spent  in  the  Philippines  had  better 
have  been  left  in  the  pockets  of  the  taxpayers  here  at  home? 
Who  does  not  know  that  we  ought  to  tremble  for  our  future 
when  we  see  how  our  law-makers  have  been  the  willing  tools 
of  those  who  ruin  the  millions  of  men  and  women,  girls  and 
boys,  in  order  that  a  few  hundred  of  ravenous  rascals  like 
Eockefeller  and  Carnegie  and  Havemeyer  and  Ryan  and  Van- 
derbilt  and  Gould  and  Harriman  shall  each  be  richer  than 
any  king  ever  was? 

Most  of  us  do  know  it !  Some  of  us  have  long  been  trying 
to  arouse  the  patient,  victimized  millions  to  a  sense  of  their 
own  wrongs.  But  it  is  an  up-hill  work.  Some  despair,  some 
scoff,  some  are  callous,  some  won't  listen,  some  are  timid,  some 
are  interested  in  keeping  things  as  they  are,  some  think  it  is 
God's  will  that  a  favored  few  should  reach  the  Paradise  of 
unlimited  riches  while  the  unfavored  multitudes  sink  into  a 
hell  of  eternal  wretchedness. 

The  lotus-eater's  plaint  of  "Let  us  alone"  is  to  me  as  fearful 
as  that  reckless,  creedless,  madly  selfish  cry  "Let  us  eat,  drink 
and  be  merry:  tomorrow  we  die." 

Jay  Gould  contemptuously  dismissed  the  suggestion  that, 
some  day,  the  American  people  might  rise  in  arms  against  its 
swinish  plutocracy.    Said  Jason,  the  cynical : 

"I  could  hire  one-half  of  the  people  to  shoot  the  other  half." 

The  man  who  said  that  was  not  more  contemptuous  of  us 
than  are  the  plutocrats  who  rule  and  rob  us  now.  But  perhaps 
what  he  said  is  the  truth.  They  manage  to  keep  us  divided, 
about  half  and  half,  in  the  bloodless  battle  of  ballots ;  perhaps, 
if  it  came  to  a  shooting  they  could  divide  us  the  same  way. 


Concerning  Abraham  Lincoln  and 


Whex  the  editor  of  a  Xorthern  magazine  applied  to  me  for 
an  article  on  Abraham  Lincoln,  my  first  inclination  was  to 
.  decline  the  commission.  Although  it  is  high  time  that  some 
;  one  should  strike  a  note  of  sanity  in  the  universal  laudation 
of  Mr.  Lincoln,  a  Southern  man  is  not,  perhaps,  the  proper 
person  to  do  it.  On  further  consideration,  however,  it  oc- 
curred to  me  that  my  position  was  radically  different  from 
that  of  any  other  public  man  in  the  South.  People  on  the 
other  side  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  cannot  be  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  for  the  last  twenty  years  I  have  waged  warfare 
upon  the  Bourbonism  and  the  narrowness  of  my  own  people. 
In  every  possible  way  I  have  appealed  to  them  to  rise  above 
sectional  prejudice  and  party  bigotry.  While  I,  myself >  have 
suffered  terribly  during  this  long  series  of  years,  some  good 
has  followed  my  work.  Twenty  years  ago,  a  white  man  in 
the  South  who  openly  professed  himself  a  member  of  the 
Eepublican  party  was  socially  ostracised.  Every  one  realizes 
how  completely  that  state  of  things  as  been  revolutionized. 

My  part  in  bringing  about  this  change  for  the  better  is  so 
well  known  in  the  Xorth  than  no  well  informed  man  or  woman 
will  attribute  to  sectionalism  anything  in  my  estimate  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  which  may  appear  to  be  harsh  or  unjust. 

Let  us  see  to  what  extent  the  adultation  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
has  gone. 

In  Harper's  Weekly  for  November  Tth,  1908,  a  British  gen- 
tleman of  the  name  of  P.  D.  Boss  offers  to  amend  the  high 
estimate  which  Colonel  Harvey  had  already  placed  upon  Mr. 
Lincoln  by  classing  our  martyred  President  as  "The  greatest 
man  the  world  has  produced."  Colonel  Harvey  soberly  accepts 
the  amendment. — thus  Miss  Ida  Tarbell  is  left  far  behind,  and 
Hay  and  Xicolay  eclipsed. 

One  of  the  more  recent  biographers  of  Mr.  Lincoln  hotly 
denounced  as  untrue  the  statement  that  "He  used  to  sit  around 
and  tell  anecdotes  like  a  traveling  man."' 

Do  we  not  all  remember  how,  as  children,  we  were  fascinated 
with  the  story  of  "The  Scottish  Chiefs."  by  Miss  Jane  Porter  \ 
Did  not  the  Sir  William  Wallace  of  that  good  lady's  romance 
appeal  to  us  a  perfect  hero,  an  ideal  knight,  exemplifying  in 
himself  the  loftiest  type  of  chivalry?  Yet.  when  we  grew  to 
be  older,  we  were  not  surprised  to  learn  that  Sir  Walter  Scott 


Sketches:  Historical.  Liteeaet.  Etc. 


135 


— certainly  a  good  judge  of  suck  matters,  and  certainly  a 
patriotic  Scotchman — wrathfully  and  contemptuously  found 
fault  with  Miss  Porter  because  she  had  frittered  away  into  "a 
fine  gentleman"  a  great,  rugged,  national  hero.  Every  well  j 
balanced  American,  North  and  South,  ought  to  feel  the  same  j 
way  towards  those  authors  who  take  Abraham  Lincoln  into 
their  hands,  dress  him  up.  tone  him  down,  polish  him  and 
change  him  until  he  is  no  longer  the  same  man. 

Let  us  study  Mr.  Lincoln  with  an  earnest  desire  to  find  out 
what  he  was.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  biography  of  him 
written  by  his  law  partner.  Mr.  Herndon.  was  that  biography 
in  which  the  best  picture  of  him  might  have  been  expected. 
His  law  partner  was  his  friend,  personally  and  politically. 
It  was  that  law  partner  who  converted  him  to  abolitionism. 
To  the  task  of  writing  the  biography  of  the  deceased  member 
of  the  firm.  Mr.  Herndon  brought  devotion  to  the  memory  of 
a  man  whom  he  had  respected  and  loved:  yet,  being  honest,  / 
he  told  the  truth  about  Mr.  Lincoln. — painting  his  portrait 
with  the  warts  on.  The  fact  that  this  record,  written  by  a 
sorrowing  friend,  was  destroyed,  and  a  spurious,  after-thought 
Herndon  biography  put  in  its  place,  must  always  be  a  fact 
worthy  of  serious  consideration. 

I  can  imagine  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  suppression  of 
Herndon's  original  manuscript  when  I  note,  with  amusement, 
the  vigor  and  indignation  with  which  a  later  biographer  de- 
fends Mr.  Lincoln  from  the  terrible  accusation  of  iwsitting 
around  and  telling  anecdotes  to  amuse  a  crowd." 

Those  who  take  the  least  pains  to  ascertain  the  facts  as  to 
Mr.  Lincoln's  story-telling  habits  soon  convince  themselves 
that  nothing  said  upon  the  subject  could  well  be  an  exaggera- 
tion. In  his  day.  the  broadest,  vulgarest  anecdotes  were  cur- 
rent in  the  South  and  TTest.  and  thousands  of  public  men,  who 
ought  to  have  been  ashamed  of  themselves  for  doing  so,  made 
a  practice  of  repeating  these  stories  to  juries  in  the  court 
house,  crowds  on-  the  hustings,  and  to  groups  in  the  streets, 
•  stores  and  hotels. 

I  Upon  one  occasion,  while  I  was  in  conversation  with  Thomas  ] 
H.  Tibbies,  a  surviving  personal  acquaintance  of  John  Brown 
fnd  Abraham  Lincoln.  I  interrogated  him  eagerly  as  to  both. 
Directing  his  attention  to  this  matter  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  fondess 
for  the  relation  of  smutty  stories,  Mr.  Tibbies  very  promptly 
replied  that  the  very  first  time  he  ever  saw  Mr.  Lincoln  he 
was  directed  to  his  room  in  the  hotel  by  a  series  of  bursts  of 
laughter.  Mr.  Tibbies*  curiosity  was  aroused  by  the  continuous 
hilarity  which  resounded  from  this  particular  room  and  he 
went  to  it.    There  he  found  a  great,  long,  raw-boned  man 


136  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


seated  in  a  chair  with  his  big  feet  up  on  the  table,  telling 
smutty  yarns  to  a  circle  of  men  who  were  exploding  with 
laughter  at  the  end  of  each  story. 

Every  man  must  be  judged  by  the  standards  of  his  time. 
People  of  elegance  and  refinement,  according  to  the  standards 
of  the  Elizabethan  age,  listened  to  comedies  which  were  con- 
sidered in  good  taste  then,  but  which  would  not  be  tolerated 
in  any  decent  community  now.  The  manners  of  the  West  and 
of  the  rural  South  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  day,  were  quite  different 
from  what  they  are  now.  Even  now,  however,  there  are  men 
who  call  themselves  gentlemen,  and  women  who  think  they  are 
ladies,  that  make  a  speciality  of  cultivating  a  talent  for  the 
relation  of  doubtful  stories.  The  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln  let  his 
gift  of  entertainment  and  his  fondness  for  the  humorous  lead 
him  down  to  the  low  plane  of  his  audience  does  not  by  any 
means  indicate  a  defect  of  heart  or  mind.  As  a  lawyer  and  as 
a  politician,  it  was  a  part  of  his  business  to  cultivate  popu- 
larity. He  made  friends  in  just  such  circles  as  that  into 
which  Mr.  Tibbies  walked.  The  men  who  laughed  with  Mr. 
Lincoln,  enjoying  the  inimitable  way  in  which  he  related 
anecdotes,  naturally  warmed  to  him,  and  they  gave  him  ver- 
dicts and  votes. 

Herndon  tells  us  that  "Lincoln  could  never  realize  the  im- 
propriety of  telling  vulgar  yarns  in  the  presence  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel." 

Lamon  admits  that  "Mr.  Lincoln's  habit  of  relating  vulgar 
yarns  (not  one  of  which  will  bear  printing)  was  restrained  by 
no  presence  and  no  occasion." 

General  Don  Piatt  bears  emphatic  testimony  to  the  same 
effect. 

In  Rhodes'  "History  of  the  United  States"— Vol.  4,  p.  518— 
we  are  told  how  Governor  Andrews  of  Massachusetts — during 
the  Civil  War — went  to  the  White  House  to  consult  President 
Lincoln  about  a  matter  of  importance,  and  how  the  President 
disgusted  the  Governor  by  telling  a  nasty  anecdote. 

In  early  manhood,  Lincoln  kept  a  grocery  store,  in  which 
he  sold  liquor.  Herndon  says — "Lincoln's  highest  delight  was 
to  get  a  rowdy  crowd  in  groceries  (dram-shops)  or  on  street 
corners  and  retail  vulgar  yarns  too  coarse  to  pt  in  print." 

Dennis  Hanks,  a  cousin  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  said,  "Abe  had  a 
great  passion  for  vulgar  yarns." 

Cousin  Dennis  was  asked  about  the  songs  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
loved  best  when  a  young  man. 

Cousin  Dennis  answered — "Religious  songs  did  not  suit  him 
at  all:  his  favorite  songs  were — unprintable.  One  of  them 
began  thus: 

"There  was  a  Romish  lady,  brought  up  in  Popery." 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


137 


You  can  readily  guess  the  rest. 

The  propensity  to  the  low-comic  was  so  strong  in  Mr. 
Lincoln  that  it  overcame  him  even  on  the  field  of  battle,  where 
new-made  graves  were  all  around  him. 

In  1862,  the  Sussex  (Xew  Jersey)  Statesman  published  the 
following : 

"Lincoln  on  the  Battlefield." 

"We  see  that  many  papers  are  referring  to  the  fact  that  Lincoln 
ordered  a  comic  song  to  be  sung  for  the  battlefield.  We  have 
known  the  facts  of  the  transaction  for  some  time,  but  have  refrained 
from  speaking  about  them.  As  the  newspapers  are  stating  some  of 
the  facts,  we  will  give  the  whole  affair.  Soon  after  one  of  the 
most  desperate  and  sanguinary  battles,  Mr.  Lincoln  visited  the 
Commanding  General,  who,  with  his  staff,  took  him  over  the  field, 
and  explained  to  him  the  plan  of  the  battle,  and  the  particular 
places  where  the  battle  was  most  fierce.  At  one  point  the  Com- 
manding General  said:  'Here  on  this  side  of  the  road  five  hundred 
of  our  brave  fellows  were  killed,  and  just  on  the  other  side  of  the 
road  four  hundred  and  fifty  more  were  killed,  and  right  on  the 
other  side  of  that  wall  five  hundred  rebels  were  destroyed.  We 
have  buried  them  where  they  fell.'  'I  declare,'  said  the  President, 
'this  is  getting  gloomy;  let  us  drive  away.'  After  driving  a  few 
rods  the  President  said:  'Jack,'  speaking  to  his  companion,  'can't 
you  give  us  something  to  cheer  us  up?  Give  us  a  song,  a  lively 
one.'  Whereupon,  Jack  struck  up,  as  loud  as  he  could  bawl,  a 
comic  negro  song,  which  he  continued  to  sing  while  they  were 
riding  off  from  the  battle  ground,  and  until  they  approached  a 
regiment  drawn  up,  when  the  Commanding  General  said:  'Would 
it  not  be  well  for  your  friend  to  cease  his  song  till  we  pass  this 
regiment?  The  poor  fellows  have  lost  more  than  half  their  num- 
ber. They  are  feeling  very  badly,  and  1'  should  be  afraid  of  the 
effect  it  would  have  on  them.'  The  President  asked  his  friend  to 
stop  singing  until  they  passed  the  regiment." 

After  the  story  had  been  frequently  reprinted,  and  after 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  told  Ward  H.  Lamon  that  he  would  not 
notice  it.  he  wrote  an  extremely  cautious  and  curious  evasion, 
rather  than  a  denial.   Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  concludes  thus : 

"Neither  McClellan  nor  anyone  else,"  he  wrote,  "made  any  objec- 
tions to  the  singing.  The  place  was  not  on  the  battlefield,  the  time 
was  sixteen  days  after  the  battle.  No  dead  bodies  were  seen,  nor 
even  a  grave  that  had  not  been  rained  on  since  it  had  been  made." 

But  this  letter  was  not  mailed  or  published,  and  no  denial 
of  the  ugly  story  was  made  in  the  life-time  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
General  McClellan  and  the  officers  who  were  present  when  the 
comic  song  was  sung  amid  the  fresh  graves  of  Antietam. 

:|<  %  ^  if  ij;  >;<  ^ 

Mr.  P.  D.  Eoss.  Editor  of  the  Ottawa  (Canada)  National, 
claims  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  "The  greatest  man  the  world  has 


138  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

produced,"  and  the  editor  of  Harper's  Weekly  soberly  falls 
into  line. 

Well,  there  should  be  some  standard  by  which  one  is  enabled 
to  measure  a  man's  greatness.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  lawyer,  a 
statesman,  and  a  Chief  Magistrate  of  a  republic.  In  each  of 
these  capacities  let  us  see  what  was  his  rank. 

Does  any  one  claim  that  he  was  the  greatest  lawyer  that 
ever  lived  ?  Surely  not.  There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  famous  verdict  getter.  He  could  do  about 
as  much  with  a  jury  as  any  advocate  in  the  West,  but  he  cer- 
tainly never  won  any  court  house  victories  that  were  more 
famous  than  those  of  Tom  Corwin,  Dan  Voorhees,  Emory 
Storrs,  Bob  Ingersoll,  Matt  Carpenter,  Sargent  Prentiss, 
Robert  Toombs  and  of  scores  of  other  lawyers  who  could 
easily  be  named.  In  knowledge  of  the  law  force  of  mental 
power  of  the  judicial  sort, — such  as  Chief  Justice  John  Mar- 
shall and  Daniel  Webster  and  Rufus  Choate  had, — does  any- 
body for  a  moment  claim  that  Mr.  Lincoln  out-ranks  all  other 
lawyers  ?  Surely  not.  He  is  not  to  be  named  in  the  same  class 
as  Severely  Johnson,  Jeremiah  Black,  Senator  Edmunds,  and 
Charles  O'Connor, — to  say  nothing  of  Jeremiah  Mason,  of 
Massachusetts,  and  Luther  Martin,  of  Maryland,  William 
Pinckney,  of  the  same  State,  and  Edmund  Randolph,  of 
Virginia. 

Mr.  Lincoln  served  in  Congress.  Did  he  cut  any  figure 
there  ?  None  whatever.  He  appeared  to  be  out  of  his  element. 
His  Congressional  record  is  not  to  be  compared  to  that  of 
Thaddeus  Stevens  or  Stephens  A.  Douglas.  We  look  into  the 
lives  of  such  men  as  Benjamin  Franklin,  the  elder  Adams,  of 
Thomas  Jefferson,  of  Clay,  Calhoun  and  Webster,  of  Alexan- 
der Hamilton  and  George  Washington,  and  there  is  no  trouble 
in  finding  their  foot-printings  on  the  sands  of  time ;  but  in  the 
achievements  of  statesmanship  where  are  the  foot-prints  of 
Mr.  Lincoln?  You  will  look  into  the  statute-books  in  vain  to 
find  them.  We  have  a  great  financial  policy,  born  of  the 
creative,  forceful  statesmanship  of  Alexander  Hamilton  and 
Henry  Clay;  we  have  a  great  protective  system,  owing  its 
origin  to  the  same  two  statesmen;  we  have  a  great  homestead 
policy,  which  owes  its  birth  to  Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee ; 
we  have  a  great  national  policy  of  internal  improvements,  but 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  its  father.  Consequently,  there  is  not  a 
single  national  line  of  policy  which  owes  its  paternity  to  this 
statesman  whom  Mr.  Ross  classes  as  "The  greatest  man  the 
world  has  produced." 

In  the  State  of  Illinois,  compare  Mr.  Lincoln's  work  with 
Mr.  Jefferson's  work  in  the  State  of  Virginia.   Did  Mr.  Lin- 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


139 


coin  leave  his  impress  anywhere  upon  the  established  order  in 
Illinois?  I  have  never  heard  of  it.  In  Virginia.  Jefferson 
found  the  Church  and  State  united,  both  taxing  the  people 
and  dividing  the  spoils.  Mr.  Jefferson  divorced  the  Church 
from  the  State,  confiscated  the  Church's  ill-gotten  wealth, 
devoting  it  to  charitable  and  educational  purposes;  and  put 
and  end  to  legalized  religious  intolerance.  In  Virginia  there 
was  a  land  monopoly,  perpetuated  by  entails  and  primogeni- 
ture. Mr.  Jefferson  made  war  upon  it.  broke  it  up.  and  thus 
overthrew  the  local  aristocracy.  He  formulated  a  school  sys- 
tem and  established  in  America  its  first  modern  college.  Can 
anything  which  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  statesman,  did  in  Illinois 
compare  with  Mr.  Jefferson's  work  in  Virginia? 

So  far  as  national  statesmanship  is  concerned.  Mr.  Lincoln 
is  not  be  classed  with  either  of  "The  Great  Trio."  nor  with 
Mr.  Jefferson,  nor  with  Alexander  Hamilton.  Each  of  the 
five  named  were  statesmen  of  the  first  order,  possessing 
original,  creative  ability  in  that  field  of  work.  There  is  no 
evidence  whatever  that  Mr.  Lincoln  possessed  that  talent. 

It  must  be.  then,  as  chief -magistrate  of  the  republic  that 
he  won  the  title  of  "great."  That,  in  fact,  is  the  case.  He  was 
a  great  Chief  Executive.  As  such,  he  deserves  immortality. 
Because  he  sealed  his  work  with  his  life  blood,  his  memory 
will  always  be  sacred.  But.  is  it  absolutely  certain  that  no 
other  American  would  have  succeeded  in  piloting  the  vessel  of 
State  through  the  storm  of  Civil  War?  Is  it  quite  certain 
that  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  himself,  would  not  have  succeeded 
where  Mr.  Lincoln  succeeded  ?  TVho  knows  and  can  dogmati- 
cally say  that  Thaddeus  Stevens  or  Oliver  Morton  or  Zach 
Chandler,  or  Ben  Wade  could  not  have  done  it  ?  What  was  it 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  did  during  the  Civil  War  that  was  so  much 
greater  and  grander  than  what  might  have  been  expected 
from  Andrew  Jackson  in  the  same  crisis?  Somehow  I  fail  to 
see  it.  He  did  not  lose  courage,  but  there  were  brave  men 
before  Agamemnon,  and  the  world  has  never  been  lacking  in 
heroic  types  that  stand  forth  and  meet  emergencies. 

In  studying  Mr.  Lincoln's  course  during  the  Civil  War  w& 
can  discover  a  great  deal  of  patience,  a  great  deal  of  tact,  a 
great  deal  of  consecration  to  patriotic  duty.  He  struck  the 
right  key-note  when  he  said  that  he  was  fighting  not  to  free 
the  negroes  but  to  preserve  the  Union.  This  insight  into  the, 
IDOssible  position  showed  political  genius  of  a  high  order.  This 
alone  would  entitle  him  to  be  classed  as  a  great  statesman,  a 
great  chief  magistrate,  a  great  national  leader.  But  it  must 
be  remembered  that  the  idea  originated  with  William  H. 
Seward,  and  that  Mr.  Lincoln  merely  adopted  it. 


140  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

When  we  calmly  reflect  upon  what  he  had  to  do,  and  the 
means  which  wer.e  at  his  command  for  doing  it,  we  see  nothing 
in  the  result  that  borders  upon  the  miraculous.  All  the  advan- 
tage was  on  his  side.  The  fire-eaters  of  the  South  played  into 
his  hands  beautifully.  They  were  so  very  blind  to  what  was 
necessary  for  their  success  that  they  even  surrendered  posses- 
sion of  Washington  City,  when  they  might  just  as  well  have 
held  it  and  rushed  their  troops  to  it,  thus  making  sure  not 
only  of  Baltimore,  but  of  the  whole  State  of  Maryland — to  say 
nothing  of  the  enormous  advantage  of  holding  possession  of 
the  capital  of  the  nation.  It  was  a  clever  strategy  which,  while 
talking  peace,  adopted  those  measures  which  compelled  the 
Confederate  authorities  to  fire  upon  the  flag  at  Fort  Sumter. 
But  that  most  effective  bit  of  strategy  appears  to  have  had  its 
birth  in  the  fertile  brain  of  William  H.  Seward.  The  di- 
plomacy which  kept  dangling  before  the  eyes  of  the  border 
States  the  promise  to  pay  for  the  slaves  until  the  necessity  of 
duping  the  waverers  had  passed,  was  clever  in  its  way;  but 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  fine  Italian  hand  of  Mr.  Seward 
was  not  in  this  policy  also. 

After  the  battle  of  Bull  Run,  Congress  passed  a  resolution 
declaring  that  the  war  was  being  waged  for  the  sole  purpose* 
of  preserving  the  Union,  and  that  the  Federal  Government 
had  no  intention  of  interfering  with  slavery.  This  was  subtle 
politics  and  it  had  the  desired  effect  upon  the  doubtful  States : 
but  there  is  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  the  first  to 
suggest  the  resolution. 

Was  Mr.  Lincoln  sincere  in  making  the  beautiful  and  touch- 
ing plea  for  peace,  in  his  first  inaugural?  Unquestionably. 
Yet  he  would  make  no  concessions,  nor  encourage  any  efforts 
at  reconciliation.  He  opposed  the  Crittenden  Compromise, 
which  demanded  no  sacrifice  of  principle  by  the  North  and 
which  surrendered  much  that  had  been  claimed  by  the  South. 
Of  the  1,200,000  square  miles  of  public  domain,  the  Southern 
leaders  offered  to  close  900,000  square  miles  to  slavery,  leaving 
it  to  the  people  of  the  remaining  300,000  square  miles  to  decide 
for  or  against  slavery  when  they  came  to  frame  their  constitu- 
tions. Democrats,  North  and  South,  favored  this  Compromise. 
The  Republicans  rejected  it.  Then,  the  last  hope  of  peaceable 
settlement  was  gone. 

Mr.  Lincoln  threw  his  influence  as  President-elect  against 
the  Peace  Congress,  and  rejected  the  South's  offer  to  adjust 
the  sectional  differences  by  a  restoration  and  extension  of  the 
old  Missouri  Compromise  line. 

The  proclamation  in  which  Mr.  Lincoln  assured  the  seceding 
States  that  slavery  should  not  be  disturbed  provided  the  insur- 
gents laid  down  their  arms  by  the  1st  of  January,  1863,  proves 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


Ul 


that  Mr.  Lincoln  is  not  entitled  to  the  very  great  credit  that 
is  given  him  for  signing  the  Emancipation  Act.  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  never  a  rabid  abolitionist,  and  was  an  eleventh  hour  man. 
at  that :  he  bore  none  of  the  brunt  of  the  pioneers'  fight :  he 
could  show  no  such  -cars  as  Wendell  Phillips  and  Lloyd  Gar- 
rison and  Cassius  M.  Clay  carried:  he  never  ran  the  risk  of 
becoming  a  martyr,  like  Love  joy :  he  stood  aside,  a  good  Whig, 
until  the  abolition  movement  was  sweeping  his  own  section, 
and  then  he  fell  into  line  with  it  like  a  practical,  sensible, 
adjustable  politician.  He  himself  joked  about  the  manner  in 
which  Thaddeus  Stevens.  Benjamin  Wade  and  Charles  Sumner 
nagged  at  him  from  week  to  week,  and  month  to  month, 
because  of  his  luke-warmness  in  the  matter  of  emancipation. 
Of  and  concerning  those  three  more  rabid  abolitionists.  Mr. 
Lincoln  told  his  somewhat  celebrated  anecdote  of  the  little 
Sunday  School  boy  and  those  "same  three  damn  fellows. 
Shadrach.  Meshach  and  Abednego."' 

Xot  until  it  became  a  military  necessity  to  do  it.  did  Mr. 
Lincoln  sign  the  Emancipation  Act.  Therefore,  his  hand 
having  been  forced  by  military  policy  rather  than  by  the  dic- 
tates of  philanthropy,  it  does  not  seem  just  to  class  him  with 
the  crusaders  of  abolition  government. 

If  he  meant  what  he  said  in  his  famous  letter  to  Alexander 
H.  Stephen- :  if  he  meant  what  he  said  even  in  his  last  inaug- 
ural.— to  say  nothing  of  the  first. — it  was  never  Lincoln's 
intention  to  go  farther  than  to  combat  the  South  in  her  efforts 
to  extend  slavery  into  the  free  States  and  Territories. 

In  Seward's  famous  "Thoughts  for  the  President's  Consid- 
eration." written  a  month  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  inaugura- 
tion, we  find  the  suggestion  of  the  change  of  issue,  from 
Slavery  to  Disunion : 

"First/3  wrote  Seward,  "we  are  at  the  end  of  a'  month's  admin- 
istration and  yet  without  a  policy. 

"Second.  This,  however,  is  not  culpable,  it  has  been  unavoidable. 
The  presence  of  the  Senate  with  the  need  to  meet  applications  for 
patronage  have  prevented  attention  to  other  and  more  grave  matters. 

"Third.  But  further  delay  to  adopt  and  prosecute  our  policy 
for  both  domestic  and  foreign  affairs,  would  not  only  bring  scandal 
on  the  administration,  but  danger  on  the  country. 

"Fourth.  To  do  this  we  must  dismiss  the  applicants  for  office, 
but,  how?  I  suggest  that  we  make  the  local  appointments  forth- 
with, leaving  foreign  or  general  ones  for  ulterior  and  occasional 
action. 

"Fifth.  The  policy  at  home.  My  system  is  built  on  this  idea  as 
a  ruling  one,  viz:  That  we  must  change  the  question  before  the 
public  from  one  upon  slavery  or  about  slavery,  to  a  question  of 
Union  or  Disunion.  In  other  words,  from  what  would  be  regarded 
as  a  party  question,  to  one  of  Patriotism  or  Union.  The  occupation 
and  evacuation  of  Fort  Sumter  although  not  in  fact  a  slavery  or 


142  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


party  question  is  so  regarded.  Witness  the  temper  manifested  by 
the  Republicans  of  the  Northern  States,  and  by  the  Union  men  in 
the  South.  For  the  rest  I  would  simultaneously  defend  and  rein- 
force all  the  Forts  in  the  gulf,  and  have  the  Navy  recalled  from 
foreign  stations  to  be  prepared  for  a  blockade,  &c." 

Then  follows  the  cynical  advice  to  pick  a  quarrel  with 
France  and  Spain. 

On  April  4th,  1861,  Seward  said  to  Russell,  the  London 
Times  correspondent : 

"It  would  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  American  Government 
to  use  armed  force  to  subjugate  the  South.  If  the  people  of  the 
South  want  to  stay  out  of  the  Union,  if  they  desire  independence, 
let  them  have  it." 

On  April  10th,  1861,  Seward  officially  wrote  C.  F.  Adams, 
then  Minister  to  England : 

"Only  a  despotic  and  imperial  government  can  subjugate  seceding 
States." 

Subsequently,  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  wrote  to  Horace  Greely 
of  the  New  York  Tribune: 

"My  paramount  object  is  to  save  the  Union,  and  not  either  destroy 
or  save  slavery.  If  I  could  save  the  Union  without  freeing  the 
slaves,  I  would  do  it.  If  I  could  save  the  Union  by  freeing  some 
and  leaving  others  in  slavery,  1  would  do  it.  If  I  could  save  it  by 
freeing  all,  I  would  do  that.  What  I  do  about  slavery  and  the 
colored  race,  I  do  because  I  believe  it  helps  to  save  the  Union." 

On  another  occasion  Lincoln  wrote: 

"I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce  political  or  social  equality 
between  the  white  and  black  race.  There  is  a  physical  difference 
between  the  two  which  probably  will  forever  forbid  their  living 
together  on  the  same  footing  of  equality.  1,  as  well  as  any  other 
man,  am  in  favor  of  the  race  to  which  I  belong  having  the  superior 
position.    I  have  never  said  anything  to  the  contrary." 

Simon  Cameron,  Lincoln's  first  Secretary  of  War,  wrote 
General  Butler,  then  in  New  Orleans: 

"President  Lincoln  desires  the  right  to  hold  slaves  to  be  fully 
recognized.  The  war  is  prosecuted  for  the  Union,  hence  no  question 
concerning  slavery  will  arise." 

In  his  inaugural  Lincoln  said : 

"I  have  no  lawful  right  to  interfere  with  slavery  directly  or 
indirectly;  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so." 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc.  143 


When  General  Grant  was  Colonel  of  the  Twenty-first  Illinois 
Infantry  he  expressed  himself  plainly  on  the  negro  question: 

"The  sole  object  of  this  war,"  said  Grant,  "is  to  restore  the 
Union.  Should  I  become  convinced  it  has  any  other  object,  or  that 
the  Government  designs  using  its  soldiers  to  execute  the  wishes  of 
the  Abolitionists,  I  pledge  you  my  honor  as  a  man  and  a  soldier  I 
would  resign  my  commission  and  carry  my  sword  to  the  other 
side." — Democratic  Speaker's  Handbook,  p.  33. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  where  were  the  Sincerities,  during 
the  Civil  War.  which  cost  the  lives  of  at  least  one  million  of 
white  men.  and  which  has  sunk  into  the  slavery  of  Commer- 
cialism at  least  ten  millions  more  ? 

And  it  cannot  be  forgotten  that  President  Lincoln  officially 
'approved  the  laws  which  built  up  this  Commercialism  and  its 
wage  slavery.  His  name  is  attached  to  the  Xational  bank  Act, 
the  Morrill  Protective  Tariff  Act.  and  to  the  financial  laws 
whose  culmination  is  the  Money  Trust. 

He  Hs  *  *  *  *  * 

In  guiding  the  non-seceding  States  through  the  perils  of 
civil  strife.  Mr.  Lincoln's  position  was  never  so  difficcult  as 
was  that  of  Mazarin.  nor  that  of  Eichelieu ;  not  so  difficult  as 
that  of  Cromwell ;  not  so  difficult  as  that  of  William  the  Silentr 
or  William  of  Orange,  and  very  much  less  difficult  than  that 
of  the  younger  Pitt. — i;the  pilot  that  weathered  the  storm'' 
of  the  revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  wars.  Mr.  Lincohrs 
achievements  as  Chief  Magistrate  and  as  a  statesman  certainly 
do  not  outrank  those  of  George  Washington,  nor  even  those 
of  Cavour.  to  whom  modern  Italy  owes  her  existence;  nor  of 
Bismarck,  creator  of  the  German  Empire.  Finally,  it  should 
be  remembered  that  the  South  was  combatting  the  Spirit  oi 
the  Age  and  the  Conscience  of  Mankind.  This  fact  lightened 
Mr.  Lincoln's  task,  immensely. 

How  do  the  people  of  the  South  feel  toward  Lincoln? 
Kindly.  We  honor  his  memory.  We  think  that  he  was  broad- 
minded,  free  from  vindictiveness,  free  from  sectionalism,  free 
from  class-hatred.  We  think  he  was  a  strong  man.  a  sagacious 
man.  and  a  very  determined  man.  We  have  always  regarded 
his  assassination  as  the  worst  blow  the  South  got  after  Appo- 
mattox. We  think  that  he.  alone,  could  have  stemmed  the 
torrent  of  sectional  hatred,  and  could  have  worked  out  a  simple 
plan  of  restoring  the  seceding  States  to  the  LTnion  which 
would  have  reunited  the  family  without  that  carnival  of 
debauchery  and  crime  known  as  the  '"Eeconstruction  period."' 

We  think  that  the  man  who  made  the  appeal  to  the  South 
which  he  made  in  his  first  inaugural,  and  the  man  who  at 
Gettysburg,  soon  after  the  battle,  praised  the  courage  of  the 


144  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


troops  who  made  the  effort  to  storm  such  heights  as  those,  and 
who  on  the  night  of  Lee's  surrender  called  upon  the  bands  to 
play  "Dixie,"  was  riot  a  bitter  partisan  of  the  Thaddeus 
Stevens  stripe,  who,  after  the  guns  had  been  stacked  and  the 
flags  furled,  would  have  used  all  the  tremendous  and  irresisti- 
ble power  of  the  Federal  Government  to  humiliate,  outrage, 
despoil  and  drive  to  desperation  a  people  who  were  already 
in  the  dust. 

It  is  not  true  that  Mr.  Lincoln  offered  generous  terms  to  the 
South  at  the  Hampton  Roads  Conference.  He  did  not  say  to 
the  Confederate  Commissioners,  "Write  the  word  '"Union'  first 
and  you  may  write  whatever  you  please  after  that." 

It  is  not  true  that  he  offered  payment  for  the  slaves. 

The  official  reports  made  to  both  Governments,  as  well  as 
Mr.  Stephens'  story  of  the  celebrated  Conference,  conclusively 
prove  that  Mr.  Lincoln  demanded  the  unconditional  surrender 
of  the  Confederacy,  as  a  preliminary  to  any  discussion  of 
terms. 

In  fact,  at  the  close  of  the  Conference  of  four  hours,  Mr. 
R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  one  of  the  Confederate  Commissioners,  feel- 
ingly complained  of  the  harshness  and  humiliation  involved 
in  the  "unconditional  surrender"  demanded  of  the  seceding 
States. 

Mr.  Lincoln  declined  to  commit  himself,  officially,  to  the 
proposition  that  the  South,  by  laying  down  her  arms  and  sub- 
mitting to' the  restoration  of  the  national  authority  throughout 
her  limits,  could  resume  her  former  relations  to  the  Govern- 
ment. Personally,  he  thought  she  could.  He  refused  officially 
to  commit  himself  on  the  subject  of  paying  the  slave-owners 
for  their  slaves.  Personally,  he  was  willing  to  be  taxed  for 
that  purpose,  and  he  believed  that  the  Northern  people  held  the 
same  views.  He  knew  of  some  who  favored  a  Congressional 
appropriation  of  $400,000,000  for  that  purpose.  But  give  any 
pledges  ?  Oh,  no.  The  Confederacy  must  first  abolish  itself, — 
then  there  would  be  a  discussion  of  terms ! 

Fort  Fisher,  North  Carolina,  had  recently  fallen;  the  Con- 
federacy was  reeling  under  the  shock  of  repeated  disaster,  the 
thin  battle  lines  of  the  Gray  were  almost  exhausted, — and  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  now  certain  that  secession  was  doomed. 

In  the  "Recollections"  of  J.  R,  Gilmore,  there  is  a  curious 
account  of  an  informal  mission  undertaken  by  himself  and 
Col.  J.  F.  Jaquess  for  the  purpose  of  ending  the  war.  Accord- 
ing to  Gilmore,  he  went  to  Washington,  had  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Lincoln,  and  drew  from  him  a  statement  of  the  term  which 
he  was  willing  to  offer  the  Confederate  Government. 

The  gist  of  his  several  propositions  was  that  the  Confederacy 
should  dissolve,  the  armies  disband,  the  seceding  States  ac- 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


1±0 


knowledge  national  authority  and  come  back  into  Congress 
with  their  representatives,  that  slavery  should  be  abolished 
and  that  $500,000,000  be  paid  the  South  for  the  slaves.  This 
was  in  June.  IS 64. 

Gilmore  and  Colonel  Jaquess  were  given  passage  through 
the  lines,  went  to  Richmond  and  saw  Mr.  Davis.  After  listen- 
ing to  the  unofficial  proposals  of  the  self-appointed  envoys, 
Mr.  Davis  declared  that  the  South  was  not  struggling  to  main- 
tain slavery,  but  to  make  good  "our  right  to  govern  ourselves."' 

As  the  terms  offered  took  away  this  fundamental  right  from 
the  South.  Mr.  Davis  declined  to  treat. 

How  hopeless,  at  that  time,  must  have  seemed  the  cause  for 
which  Jefferson  Davis  stood !  How  eternally  assured  that  of 
Mr.  Lincoln !  Yet.  see  how  old  Father  Time  works  his  mira- 
cles.— the  Jefferson  Davis  principle  has  risen  from  the  ashes, 
a  very  Phoenix  of  life  immortal.  The  Lincoln  position  has 
been  abandoned  by  the  Party  which  made  him  its  first  Presi- 
dent. The  cause  of  Home  Rule  is  stronger  throughout  the 
world  than  when  the  fugitive  President  of  the  broken  Confed- 
eracy faced  his  official  family,  at  its  last  Cabinet  meeting,  in 
the  village  of  Washington,  Georgia,  and  asked,  despairingly, 
"Is  it  all  over?" 

The  hateful  Amendments,  which  struck  so  foul  and  cruel  a 
blow  at  "our  right  to  govern  ourselves."  are  now  nothing  more 
than  monuments  reared  by  political  partisans  to  their  own 
vindictive  passions.  The  better  element  throughout  the  North 
would  be  glad  to  forget  them.  They  have  been  distorted  by 
the  Federal  Judiciary  and  have  proven  to  be  a  curse  to  the 
whole  country,  in  that  the  are  the  refuge  of  the  corporations 
which  plunder  the  people. 

Republican  leaders  look  on,  acquiescent,  while  State  after 
State  that  seceded  from  the  Union  puts  into  practice  the  prin- 
ciple for  which  the  South  fought  in  the  Civil  War, — the  right 
to  regulate  our  own  domestic  concerns. 

"We  are  fighting,  not  for  slavery,  but  for  the  right  to  govern 
.  ourselves."    So  said  our  President:  so  said  our  Statesmen;  so 
j  said  our  soldiers ;  so  said  our  civilians.    And  today  we  are 
vindicated. 

The  insanest  war  in  history,  as  one  studies  it,  is  seen  to  have 
been  fought  for  a  principle  which  both  sides  now  admit  to 
have  been  right,  and  which  Mr.  Lincoln  repeatedly  and  most 
earnestly  declared  was  right,  before  a  shot  was  fired. 

i  \ 

During  the  War.  as  all  the  world  knows.  Mr.  Lincoln  treated 
the  Constitution  as  a  dead  letter.  He  suspended  the  Writ  of 
Habeas  Corpus;  and  had  many  a  Bastile  filled  with  prisoners 
who  were  arbitrarily  arrested  by  the  soldiery. 


146  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


It  is  also  well  known  how  he  used  the  military  arm,  in  his 
second  race  for  the  Presidency  to  win  the  prize  which  he  so 
eagerly  coveted. 

In  fact,  he  made  a  joke  of  the  Constitution,  as  several 
anecdotes  attest. 

When  the  ever  infamous  National  Bank  Act  was  under  con- 
sideration, Salmon  P.  Chase,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  flatly 
characterized  it  as  a  violation  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Davis  Tailor,  carried  to  Mr.  Lincoln  a  message  to  that 
effect  from  Mr.  Chase. 

"Tailor,"  said  Lincoln,  "go  back  to  Chase  and  tell  him  not 
to  bother  himself  about  the  United  States  Constitution.  Say 
that  I  have  that  sacred  instrument  here  at  the  White  House, 
and  I  am  guarding  it  with  great  care." 

Chase,  Tailor  and  Lincoln  then  held  a  conference.  Chase 
explained  how  the  scheme  to  raise  money  was  a  violation  of 
the  Constitution.  Lincoln,  after  his  usual  habit,  swept  away 
Chase's  statement  of  facts  by  a  story : 

"Chase,"  said  Lincoln,  "down  in  Illinois  I  was  held  to  be  a 
pretty  good  lawyer;  now  this  thing  reminds  me  of  a  story. 
An  Italian  captain  run  his  vessal  on  a  rock  and  knocked  a 
hole  in  her  bottom.  He  set  his  men  to  pumping  and  went  to 
prayers  before  a  figure  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  bow  of  the 
ship.  The  leak  gained  on  them  until  it  looked  as  if  the  vessel 
would  go  down  with  all  on  board.  Then  the  captain,  in  a  fit 
of  rage  at  not  having  his  prayers  answered,  seized  the  figure 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  threw  it  overboard.  Suddenly  the 
leak  stopped,  the  water  was  pumped  out  and  the  vessel  got 
safely  into  port.  When  docked  for  repairs  the  statute  of  the 
I  Virgin  Mary  was  found  stuck  head  foremost  in  the  hole." 

Chase,  who  never  liked  Lincoln's  stories,  told  the  President 
he  did  not  see  the  application  of  the  story. 

"Why,  Chase,"  returned  Lincoln,  "I  didn't  intend  precisely 
I  to  throw  the  Virin  Mary  overboard — by  that  I  mean  the  Con- 
\  stitution — but  I  will  stick  it  into  the  hole  if  I  can." 

And  he  did  stick  it  in  the  hole.  The  Iowa  editor  told  the 
tale  more  tersely,  when  he  admiringly  said: 

"Abraham  Lincoln  kicked  the  Constitution  into  the  Capitol 
cellar,  and  there  it  remained  inocuous  until  the  war  ended." 

Yet  this  was  the  same  statesman  who,  an  January  13,  1848, 
said  on  the  floor  of  the  National  House  of  Representatives 
that— 

"Any  people  anywhere,  being  inclined  and  having  the  power, 
have  the  right  to  rise  up  and  shake  off  the  existing  government  and 
to  form  one  that  suits  them  better.  Nor  is  this  right  confined  to 
erases  in  which  the  people  of  an  existing  government  may  choose  to 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc.  147 

exercise  it.  Any  portion  of  such  people  that  can.  may  make  their 
own  of  such  territory  as  they  inhabit.  More  than  this.,  a  majority 
of  any  portion  of  such  people  may  revolutionize,  putting  down  a 
minority  intermingling  with  or  near  them  who  oppose  their  move- 
ments.— Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  1st  Session,  30th  Con- 
gress, page  9  4. 

If  that  is  not  good  secession  doctrine,  what  is  it  ? 

Jjs  Hs  %  *  % 

TTas  Abraham  Lincoln  a  lover  of  power  and  office  \  Most 
of  the  larger  histories  will  tell  you  how  he  used  5.000  L'nion 
soldiers,  under  the  command  of  Gen.  Butler,  to  intimidate 
opposition  voters  in  New  York  City,  when  General  McClellan 
ran  for  the  Presidency,  in  1861:  but  was  Mr.  Lincoln  jealous 
of  possible  rivals  \    "Was  he  ever  tortured  by  the  lust  for  office  1 

Concerning  this.  James  Harrison  "Wilson  related  an  incident, 
in  his  article.  "The  last  days  of  General  Grant."  published  in 
The  Century  magazine  a  few  years  ago: 

Amongst  the  most  sagacious  and  prudent  of  General  Grant's 
friends  was  J.  Russel  Jones,  Esq..  formerly  of  Galena,  at  that  time 
United  States  Marshal  for  the  northern  district  of  Illinois,  and  also 
a  warm  and  trusted  friend  of  the  President.  Mr.  Jones,  feeling  a 
deep  interest  in  General  Grant,  and  having  many  friends  and  neigh- 
bors under  his  command,  had  joined  the  army  at  Vicksburg  and 
was  there  on  the  day  of  its  final  triumph.  Lincoln,  hearing  this, 
and  knowing  his  intimacy  with  Grant,  sent  for  him,  shortly  after 
his  return  to  Chicago,  to  come  to  Washington.  Mr.  Jones  started 
immediately  and  traveled  night  and  day.  On  his  arrival  at  the  rail- 
way station  at  Washington  he  was  met  by  the  President's  servants 
and  carriage,  taken  directly  to  the  White  House,  and  at  once  shown 
into  the  President's  room.  After  a  hurried  but  cordial  greeting  the 
President  led  the  way  to  the  library,  closed  the  doors,  and  when  he 
was  sure  that  they  were  entirely  alone  addressed  him  as  follows: 

"I  have  sent  for  you,  Mr.  Jones,  to  know  if  that  man  Grant  wants 
to  be  President." 

Mr.  Jones,  although  somewhat  astonished  at  the  question  and 
the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  asked,  replied  at  once: 

"No,  Mr.  President.'' 

"Are  you  sure?"  queried  the  latter. 

"Yes,"  said  Mr.  Jones,  "perfectly  sure:  I  have  just  come  from 
Vicksburg:  1  have  seen  General  Grant  frequently  and  talked  fully 
and  freely  with  him,  about  that  and  every  other  question,  and  I 
know  he  has  no  political  aspirations  whatever,  and  certainly  none 
for  the  Presidency.  His  only  desire  is  to  see  you  re-elected,  and  to 
do  what  he  can  under  your  orders  to  put  down  tne  rebellion  and 
restore  peace  to  the  country." 

"Ah,  Mr.  Jones."'  said  Lincoln,  "you  have  lifted  a  great  weight 
off  my  mind,  and  done  me  an  immense  amount  of  good,  for  I  tell 
you,  my  friend,  no  man  knows  how  deeply  that  presidential  grub 
gnaws  till  he  has  had  it  himself." 

How  Mr.  Lincoln  tried  to  buy  off  General  McClellan  himself, 
with  brilliant  appointments  for  himself  his  father-in-law.  and 


148  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


a  substantial  recognition  of  the  Democratic  party,  is  told  in 
Lamon's  '"Recollections  of  Lincoln." 

❖  ❖  sfs  ❖  *  *  * 

In  Ida  Tarbell's  Life  of  Lincoln,  we  find  this  extra-ordinary 
statement,  as  related  by  Joseph  Medill,  of  the  Chicago  Tribune: 

"In  1864,"  relates  Medill,  "when  the  call  for  extra  troops  came, 
Chicago  revolted.  Chicago  had  sent  22,000  and  was  drained.  There 
were  no  young  men  to  go,  no  aliens  except  what  were  already 
bought.  The  citizens  held  a  mass  meeting  and  appointed  three  men, 
of  whom  I  (Medill)  was  one,  to  go  to  Washington  and  ask  Stanton 
(the  War  Secretary)  to  give  Cook  County  a  new  enrollment.  On 
reaching  Washington  we  went  to  Stanton  with  our  statement.  He 
refused.  Then  we  went  to  President  Lincoln.  'I  Cannot  do  it,' 
said  Lincoln,  'but  I  will  go  with  you  to  Stanton  and  hear  the  argu- 
ments of  both  sides.'  So  we  all  went  over  to  the  War  Department 
together.  Stanton  and  General  Frye  were  there,  and  they  both 
contended  that  the  quota  should  not  be  changed.  The  argument 
went  on  for  some  time,  and  was  finally  referred  to  Lincoln,  who  had 
been  silently  listening.  When  appealed  to,  Lincoln  turned  to  us 
with  a  black  and  frowning  face:  'Gentlemen,'  he  said,  with  a  voice 
full  of  bitterness,  'after  Boston,  Chicago  has  been  the  chief  instru- 
ment in  bringing  this  war  on  the  country.  The  Northwest  opposed 
the  South,  as  New  England  opposed  the  South.  It  is  you,  Medill, 
who  is  largely  responsible  for  making  blood  flow  as  it  has.  You 
called  for  war  until  you  had  it.  I  have  given  it  to  you.  What  you 
have  asked  for  you  have  had.  Now  you  come  here  begging  to  be  let 
off  from  the  call  for  more  men,  which  I  have  made  to  carry  on  the 
war  you  demanded.  You  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  yourselves.  Go 
home  and  raise  your  6,000  men.  And  you,  Medill,  you  and  your 
Tribune  have  had  more  influence  than  any  other  paper  in  the  North- 
west in  making  this  war.  Go  home  and  send  me  those  men  I 
want.'  " 

Medill  says  that  he  and  his  companions,  feeling  guilty,  left 
without  further  argument.  They  returned  to  Chicago,  and  6,000 
more  men  from  the  working  classes  were  dragged  from  their  homes, 
their  families,  forced  into  the  ranks  to  risk  limbs  and  lives  in  a  war 
they  had  no  part  in  making,  while  the  men  that  forced  the  war  on 
an  unwilling  people  remained  at  home  in  comfort  and  safety,  and 
made  enormous  fortunes  by  the  war. 


The  Struggle  of  Church  Against 
State  in  France. 


The  most  glorious  night  in  the  history  of  France,  is  that  of 
August  4,  17S9. 

On  that  famous  night  the  Xational  Assembly  tore  up  Feud- 
alism, root  and  branch.  So  universal  and  irresistible  had  be- 
come the  rage  against  Feudal  burdens.  Feudal  privileges  and 
Feudal  tyranny,  that  the  Breton  Club,  filled  with  ambitious 
and  enthusiastic  young  nobles  who  had  embraced  liberal  prin- 
ciples and  who  were  then  leading  the  Revolutionary  move- 
ment, determined  to  put  forward  one  of  their  leaders  to  move, 
in  the  National  Assembly,  that  the  peasant  be  given  the  right 
to  buy  out  his  lord's  Feudal  privileges. 

The  young  Duke  of  Aiguillon  had  been  selected  to  make 
this  motion.  But  Count  Noailles.  who  as  a  younger  son  had 
no  Feudal  privileges  to  lose,  had  heard  of  the  Duke's  purpose 
and  jumped  ahead  of  him  that  night — gained  the  floor  himself, 
and  made  a  speech  proposing  not  only  the  privilege  of  re- 
deeming Feudal  right  in  money,  but  the  abolition  of  forced 
labor,  and  all  personal  service  without  any  redemption.  Thus 
a  young  scion  of  the  Aristocracy,  who  little  dreamed  what  he 
was  doing,  struck  at  the  very  heart  of  the  Old  Order. 

Feudalism  had  stood  in  France  for  a  thousand  years.  Sis 
months  previous  to  the  night  of  August  4th  it  had  seemed  to 
be  as  formidable  as  ever.  Its  huge  form  met  the  eye  at  every 
turn.  Its  battlements  rose  high,  were  thick,  looked  strong. 
Its  dungeons  were  deep  and  dark.  In  its  hands  were  both 
sword  and  purse.  The  State  guarded  it :  the  Law  drew  its 
charmed  circle  about  it :  the  Church  blessed  it.  and  was  its 
partner.  Who  could  have  believed,  six  months  before,  that 
the  purse  was  empty,  the  sword  all  rust,  the  walls  ready  to 
crumble  at  a  touch,  the  whole  elaborate  fraud  and  imposture 
feeble  with  incurable  decay  \ 

After  Noailles  sat  down,  the  Duke  of  Aiguillon  rose,  painted 
a  frightful  picture  of  the  condition-  then  prevailing  through- 
out the  country,  and  admitted  that  the  violence  of  the  pea- 
santry found  its  justification  in  the  wrongs  of  the  Feudal 
system.  He  proposed  that  corporate  bodies,  towns,  communi- 
ties and  individuals,  that  had  theretofore  enjoyed  special 
privileges  and  exemptions,  should  for  the  future!  bear  their 
share  of  the  public  burdens. 


150  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Great  excitement  followed  the  Duke's  speech.  An  enthu- 
siastic impulse  of  patriotism  began  to  take  possession  of  the 
entire  Assembly.  One  after  another,  deputies  rose,  made  pas- 
sionate speeches  and  proposed  the  destruction  of  some  oppres- 
sive feature  of  the  Feudal  system.  Springing  to  his  feet  after 
the  Duke  had  sat  down,  a  Breton  deputy,  dressed  in  the  plain 
clothes  of  a  farmer,  made  his  first  speech — and  so  far  as  I 
know,  his  last — in  that  Assembly.  Said  he,  in  words  which 
the  privileged  few  of  all  nations  might  now  take  to  heart  as 
an  indication  of  the  wrath  to  come,  uHad  you  burnt  the  title- 
deeds  of  Feudalism  yourselves,  the  peasants  would  not  now  be 
burning  parchment  and  castle  together.  Those  Feudal  burdens 
crush  and  degrade  humanity.  Let  us  burn  the  privileges 
which  yoke  men  like  beasts  of  labour,  and  which  compel  men 
to  beat  ponds  at  night  to  prevent  the  frogs  from  disturbing 
the  sleep  of  their  voluptuous  lords." 

By  this  time  the  assembly  was  in  a  whirl  of  excitement. 
The  next  attack  was  made  upon  bloated  pensions  and  out- 
rageous salaries.  Carried  away  by  the  generous  contagion,  the 
nobles  voluntarily  agreed  to  sacrifice,  for  the  public  good,  those 
pensions  and  salaries.  Their  announcement  was  received  with 
thunders  of  applause. 

The  Marquis  of  Beauharnais  proposed  that  hereafter  all 
citizens  be  equal  before  the  criminal  law,  and  that  employment 
of  every  kind  should  be  open  to  every  citizen  alike.  Voted 
amid  shouts  of  approval.  And  so  the  beneficiaries  of  special 
privilege  rose,  one  after  the  other,  and,  inspired  by  the  spirit 
of  that  glorious  night,  surrendered  up  to  be  burned  upon  the 
altar  of  sacrifice  those  special  privileges  which  had  plunged 
France  into  the  horrors  of  civil  strife. 

A  writer  in  the  New  York  Herald,  of  recent  date  says  that 
upon  the  night  of  August  4th,  the  clergy  of  France  caught  the 
patriotic  infection,  and  that  they  themselves  rose  to  the  splen- 
did height  of  voluntary  renunciation  of  their  special  privileges 
for  the  benefit  of  the  fatherland. 

The  New  York  Herald  is  utterly,  absolutely  wrong.  The 
clergy  did  nothing  of  the  kind.  Upon  the  contrary,  they  were 
conspicuously  wanting  in  sympathy  with  the  patriotic  spirit 
pervading  the  Assembly.  It  was  upon  the  initiative  of  others 
that  the  Assembly  voted  away  from  the  clergy  the  privileges 
and  abuses  which  they  had  refused  to  voluntarily  renounce. 

The  Bishop  of  Nancy,  who  had  in  a  recent  sermon  attacked 
so  bitterly  the  salt  tax,  and  the  extravagance  of  the  court,  was 
the  spokesman  of  the  church  upon  that  historic  event.  The 
utmost  which  the  bishop  would  offer  in  the  way  of  concilia- 
tion and  compromise,  was  that  the  peasant  might  redeem  in 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


151 


money  the  Feudal  privileges  which  the  church  had  long  en- 
joyed. The  rich  clergy  gave  nothing  to  the  common  cause. 
The  poor  cure  offered  to  renounce  his  fees.  The  Assembly, 
profoundly  touched  by  this  spirit  in  the  poorer  clergy,  refused 
to  accept  the  sacrifice. 

It  is  true  that  the  revolutionary  leaders  pressed  right  on 
until  the  proud  aristocracy  of  the  church  was  stripped  of  its 
un- Christian  wealth,  privilege  and  power — but  not  once  did  the 
higher  clergy  manifest  the  slightest  public  spirit  or  patriotic 
impulse. 

On  the  contrary,  when  the  royal  treasury  was  empty,  the 
deficit  yawning  wide  and  deep,  the  life  of  the  Bourbon  Dynasty 
at  its  last  gasp,  the  minister  of  the  Bourbon  King  implored 
his  brother  Catholics  to  lend  to  the  state  a  beggarly  8300.000 
to  save  the  throne  from  ruin. 

The.  Archbishop  of  Brienne.  who  made  the  plea,  was  a  good 
Catholic.  And  his  prayer  was  coldly,  flatly,  emphatically 
-corned — by  those  princes  of  the  Catholic  Church  who  paid  no 
taxes  and  whose  revenues  amounted  to  more  than  Sl5.000.000 
per  year. 

In  order  to  understand  the  crisis  that  now  threatens  civil 
war  in  France,  it  is  necessary  to  take  a  look  backward,  but, 
first,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  us  to  understand  that  this 
is  a  falling  out  among  Catholics.  It  is  not  a  conflict  in  which 
Protestant  is  arrayed  against  Catholic :  it  is  not  a  struggle  in 
which  the  believer  is  at  dagger's  point  with  the  unbeliever. 
It  is  a  division  of  the  faithful  into  two  camps. 

Xow  for  the  look  backward. 

There  has  for  generations  been  trouble  among  the  French 
Catholics.  In  fact,  so  far  as  the  writer  now  remembers,  the 
Catholic  Church  in  France  has  never  been  entirely  at  peace 
with  itself  save  when  there  was  a  conflict  between  believer 
and  infidel,  or  between  Protestant  and  Mother  Church.  Ever 
since  the  Catholics  obtained  a  complete  triumph  over  the 
Protestants,  there  have  been  dissensions  in  their  own  ranks. 
These  have  been  extremely  bitter:  and  upon  the  stormy  sea  of 
Catholic  factions,  the  ship  of  State  has  had  difficult  navigation 
time  and  again. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  article,  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention 
every  dispute  between  the  papal  court  of  Eome  and  the  French 
Catholic  Church.  It  will  answer  every  purpose  to  recall  that 
there  has  always  been  at  least  two  distinct  groups  of  French 
Catholics.  One  of  these  favored  Home  Rule,  and  the  other 
favored  Rome  Rule. 

The  one  faction  were  in  favor  of  a  Gallican  church,  which 
should  be.  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  independent  of  the 
Vatican  in  matters  of  discipline  and  mere  church  government. 


152  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Opposed  to  these  Home  rulers  was  the  faction  of  French 
Catholics  called  Ultra  Montaines,  who  believed  that  the 
Vatican  should  be  supreme  and  be  obeyed  in  all  things. 

Of  course,  the  tendency  of  the  policy  of  the  Eome  rulers  was 
to  erect  within  France  a  power  greater  than  the  king's;  thus 
making  the  Church  greater  than  the  State. 

Let  me  remind  the  reader  of  the  time  when  the  most  mar- 
velous woman  that  ever  lived,  Madame  de  Maintenon,  wrung 
from  Louis  XVI.  those  concessions  to  the  Orthodox  Catholic 
Church  which  resulted  in  the  Eevocation  of  the  Edict  of 
Nantes,  and  in  the  Dragonnades.  The  Huguenot  gathered  up 
his  household  goods,  shook  the  dust  of  his  country  from  the 
soles  of  his  feet  and  sought  in  Great  Britain  and  in  the  New 
World  the  liberty  which  was  denied  him  in  the  land  of  his 
birth.  Those  Protestants  who  remained  in  France  were  with- 
out power  and  without  legal  recognition.  The  Catholic  was 
monarch  of  all  he  surveyed.  The  Catholic  Church  was  a  huge 
religious  monopoly.  Its  hierarchy  was  intrenched  in  a  power 
before  which  the  king  himself  was  a  secondary  potentate. 
Then  followed  those  consequences  which  have  always  followed 
when  too  much  power  is  granted  to  any  set  of  men.  The 
Catholic  Church  absorbed  much  of  the  wealth  of  the  land. 
The  higher  priesthood  became  an  aristocracy,  imitating  in 
every  respect  the  feudal  aristocracy  which  was  rich,  idle  and 
licentious.  Just  as  the  State  regarded  the  subject  from  the 
standpoint  of  taxpayer  only;  just  as  the  State  imposed  upon 
the  common  people  all  the  burdens  of  government  while  deny- 
ing them  the  benefits;  so  the  nobility  of  the  Catholic  Church 
lived  sumptuously,  lazily,  licentiously — shirking  their  duties, 
forgetting  the  responsibilities  of  their  sacred  calling,  neglect- 
ing the  flock  committed  to  their  care,  allowing  ignorance  and 
superstition  to  take  full  possession  of  the  minds  of  the  common 
people. 

In  the  records  of  the  human  race  there  can  be  found  no 
evidence  more  damning  to  absolutism  and  the  union  of  Church 
and  State  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  degraded,  besotted  condi- 
tion of  the  common  people  of  France  immediately  preceding 
the  French  Revolution. 

All  France  was  orthodox.  The  masses  believed.  With 
boundless  credulity  they  knelt  at  the  foot  of  the  priest. 

Yet,  what  had  the  priest  done  for  them  ?  Had  he  introduced 
books  among  them?  No.  Liberal  ideas?  No.  Schools?  No. 
Information  upon  such  matters  as  concerned  their  material 
welfare?  No.  Had  the  church  ever  pleaded  the  peasant's 
case  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion?  No.  Ever  besought  the 
king  to  lighten  the  weight  of  his  heavy  hand?    No.  Ever 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  153 


protested  against  feudal  wrongs?  No.  Ever  shown  the  least 
desire  that  the  condition  of  the  masses  should  be  im- 
proved ?  No. 

Royalist  writers  dwell  scornfully  upon  the  ignorance,  bru- 
tality and  prejudice  of  the  lower  orders  in  France  at  the  time 
of  the  Revolution — let  them  write  ever  so  scornfully,  the  lower 
they  degrade  the  peasant,  the  higher  mounts  the  evidence  and 
the  indignation  against  those  who  had  been  his  keepers ! 

This  government  of  France  had  been  absolute.  The  State 
and  the  Church,  the  king  and  the  priest,  had  had  entire  control. 
The  people  had  no  voice,  no  vote,  no  power.  They  had  never 
been  consulted.  The  entire  responsibility  had  been  assumed 
by  the  monarch  and  his  privileged  few — and  here  was  the 
result.  Theirs  was  the  tree,  theirs  the  fruit.  "Whatsoever  a 
man  sow,  that  also  shall  he  reap;"  and  the  crimes,  the  igno- 
rance, the  brutality,  the  poverty,  the  misery  of  the  masses  of 
the  French  people  in  1789  stands  as  a  permanent  judgment  of 
condemnation  against  the  ruling  classes,  who  were  responsible 
for  the  material,  mental  and  spiritual  condition  of  a  people 
who  had  so  long  been  under  their  absolute  control. 

These  conditions  cried  aloud  to  Heaven  for  reform.  The 
reform"  came  in  the  thunder  claps  and  the  lightning  flashes  ot 
revolution.  Why  ?  Because  neither  the  Church  nor  the  State 
would  listen  to  the  voice  of  the  reformers,  such  as  Turgot  and 
Necker  and  Mirabeau,  who  had  vainly  endeavored  to  arouse 
the  Church  and  the  State  to  a  realization  of  the  dangerous 
situation.  The  nobility — selfish,  ignorant,  bigoted,  full  of  class 
pride  and  class  prejudice,  utterly  repudiated  the  idea  that  the 
common  man  had  any  rights  which  they  were  bound  to  respect  ; 
and  with  a  madness  which  was  as  blind  as  it  was  suicidal,  they 
expelled  from  office  one  minister  after  another,  the  moment 
that  minister  pointed  to  the  real  source  of  all  the  trouble  that 
was  threatening  to  engulf  the  State,  to-wit :  Privilege !  Priv- 
ilege !  Privilege ! 

Equally  blind,  equally  selfish,  equally  mad,  were  the  higher 
dignitaries  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Their  minds  seemed  to  be 
hermetically  sealed  to  any  new  idea;  their  hearts  were  steeled 
against  any  appeal  to  patriotism  or  humanity. 

Whence  sprung  the  revolt  against  the  higher  orders  ?  From 
Protestants?  By  no  means.  The  Protestant  was  an  insignifi- 
cant portion  of  the  population.  The  revolt  against  the  aris- 
tocratic Catholic  noble  came  from  the  Catholic  common  people. 

Therefore,  the  French  Revolution  was  a  revolt  of  the  Cath- 
olic common  people  against  the  Catholic  nobility  of  Church 
and  State. 

The  revolt  against  the  higher  dignitaries  of  the  Catholic 
Church  came  from  the  poorer,  humbler  Catholic  priests,  who 
as  Cures,  were  obliged  to  bear  the  burden  of  church-work,  and 


154  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

had  to  exist  upon  crumbs  which  the  lordly  princes  of  the, 
hierarchy  disdainfully  flung  to  them. 

Almost  every  historian  has  stated  that  the  Eevolution  made 
war  upon  religion  and  set  up  atheism.  This  is  not  true.  What 
the  Eevolution  did  was  to  divorce  the  Church  from  the  State. 
Our  forefathers  did  the  same  thing  when  they  founded  our 
republic.  In  Virginia  there  was  a  union  of  Church  and  State. 
Mr.  Jefferson  made  war  upon  it,  and  succeeded  in  divorcing 
the  Church  from  the  State.  During  the  French  Eevolution 
the  leaders  wanted  to  do  for  France  precisely  what  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son did  for  Virginia.  They  wished  the  Church  to  occupy  its 
own  sphere  of  action  and  usefulness;  they  wanted  the  State 
to  occupy  its  own  sphere  of  action  and  usefulness.  They  had 
realized  the  danger  of  union  between  the  two.  Now  remem- 
ber, those  leaders  who  wanted  the  Church  separated  from  the 
State  were  not  all  atheists,  free-thinkers,  infidels,  deists. 
Many  of  them  were  true  Catholics.  Talleyrand  ,was  born  and 
reared  in  the  bosom  of  the  mother  church,  and  he  had  worn 
the  robes  of  office  as  a  bishop  of  Eome.  The  Abbe  Seieyes  was 
as  true  a  Catholic,  perhaps,  as  the  Cardinal  De  Eohan.  Many 
others  of  the  prominent  leaders  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ments were  as  true  Catholics  at  heart  and  in  mind  as  any  of 
those  cardinals  who  had  the  ear  of  the  Pope  in  the  Vatican. 
Therefore,  it  was  not  a  question  of  conscience;  it  was  not  a 
question  of  religion ;  it  was  not  a  question  of  policy ;  a  question 
of  whether  the  State  should  be  sovereign  in  its  own  sphere 
of  action. 

It  is  frequently  said  and  currently  believed  that  the  Catholic 
Church  in  France  was  closed  by  the  Eevolution,  and  that  it 
never  revived  until  after  the  advent  of  Napoleon.  This  is 
ludicrously  false.  During  the  whole  time  of  the  Eevolution 
the  Catholic  Church  stayed  open,  and  the  faithful  flocked  to 
its  altars. 

True,  there  was  a  tremendous  row  which  threatened  the  life 
of  the  reform  movement.  But  was  was  it?  Some  Catholics 
were  willing  to  obey  the  law  which  separated  the  Church  from 
the  State,  while  others  were  not  willing  to  do  so.  Those  who 
submitted  went  forward  regularly  with  their  devotions.  Those 
who  defied  the  law  became  incendiaries,  rebels,  and  did  their 
utmost  to  aid  the  foreign  invaders  in  crushing  the  life  out 
of  the  fatherland. 

During  the  Eeign  of  Terror,  the  Catholic  worship  went  on 
without  the  slightest  interruption,  excepting  as  I  have  just 
said,  that  some  of  the  Catholics  refused  to  obey  the  law,  which 
separated  the  Church  from  the  State. 

It  is  known  to  but  few  that  these  priests  of  the  Catholic 
Church  who  conceived  it  to  be  their  duty  to  obey  the  voice  oi 
the  Statet  and  accept  the  constitution,  were  proceeding  with 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  155 

ever-increasing  usefulness,  power  and  success  in  building  up  a 
Home  rule  church.  These  noble-hearted  priests  stood  at  the 
post  of  duty,  subordinating  their  priestly  pride  to  their  con- 
scious conception  of  duty,  while  the  Chief  Priests  of  the 
hierarchy  stood  moodily,  selfishly,  irreconcilably  aside,  or 
fled  to  foreign  countries  and  instigated  invasions  of  their  own 
country.  Those  noble-souled  priests  of  the  Catholic  Church 
bowed  to  the  will  of  the  nation  as  expressed  through  the 
Gallican  Church,  ruled  by  Frenchmen  and  supported,  as  all 
religious  denominations  should  be,  by  the  voluntary  contribu- 
tions of  the  faithful.  This  is  one  very  important  chapter  in 
the  history  of  the  French  Revolution  which  most  historians 
have  entirely  slurred  over,  or  misrepresented. 

During  the  years  when  I  was  making  a  close  study  of  French 
history,  in  order  to  write  "The  Story  of  France,*'  and  the 
"Life  of  Napoleon,"  I  came  upon  these  facts  and  my  surprise 
was  very  great  at  finding  them. 

Thus  matters  stood  when  Napoleon  began  his  imperial 
career.  YYTien  Lafayette  told  him,  "You  want  to  have  a  certain 
little  bottle  broken  over  your  head,"  Napoleon  smiled,  but  did 
not  deny.  The  little  bottle  alluded  to  was,  of  course,  the  vial 
in  which  was  held  the  sacred  oil  which  was  used  in  anointing 
the  head  of  him  who  is  crowned  ruler  of  the  French. 

Napoleon  realized  that  if  he  came  to  terms  with  the  Pope, 
that  he  would  at  once  draw  to  himself  the  support  of  the 
strongest  faction  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Acting  with  the 
astute  selfishness  of  the  politician,  he  made  his  celebrated  treaty 
with  the  Pope,  which  is  known  as  the  Concordat.  (1801.) 

In  this  treaty  between  Napoleon  and  the  Pope.  France  was 
to  pay  clerical  salaries  to  the  extent  of  $10,000,000  per  year. 
Of  course,  this  money  which  was  paid  to  the  Church,  was  first 
taxed  out  of  the  people  by  the  State. 

In  my  "Life  of  Napoleon, "  I  took  the  position  which  I  havfe 
never  seen  any  reason  to  change,  that  this  Concordat  was  the 
unpardonable  sin  of  his  career.  It  cut  the  ground  from  under 
those  clericals  who  were  willing  to  subordinate  their  law- 
making body,  established  a  truly  priestly  pride  to  the  will  of 
the  nation  as  expressed  by  the  legislature,  and  who  in  abolish- 
ing fees  for  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  had  given 
such  convincing  evidence  that  they  wished  to  get  closer  to  the 
standard  of  Christ  than  the  Catholic  Church  had  been  previous 
to  the  Revolution. 

By  the  Concordat.  Napoleon  destroyed  this  independent 
Catholic  Church,  restored  the  rule  of  Rome,  put  the  French 
Catholics  under  the  feet  of  the  Italian  priests,  and  laid  those 
foundations  upon  which  the  Roman  Hierarchy  built  the  power 
which  afterwards  antagonized  the  supremacy  of  the  State. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Napoleon  celebrated  the  restora- 


156  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

tion  of  the  union  between  Church  and  State  in  France  by 
gorgeous  ceremonial  in  Notre  Dame.  It  required  all  the 
authority  of  the  First  Consul  to  compel  his  own  generals 
to  attend. 

As  the  ceremonial  was  proceeding,  Napoleon  turned  to 
General  Delmas  and  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  it.  With 
the  bluntness  of  a  soldier,  General  Delmas  replied:  "It  is  a 
fine  harlequinade,  needing  only  the  presence  of  the  million  men 
who  died  to  do  away  with  all  that." 

Napoleon  himself  afterwards  realized  what  an  enormous 
mistake  he  had  made.  For  when  he  himself  began  to  totter 
under  the  repeated  blows  of  foreign  coalitions,  it  was  the 
Roman  Hierarchy  which  struck  him  the  blow  from  which  he 
could  not  recover. 

The  relations  between  the  Church  and  the  State  remained 
as  Napoleon  had  left  them,  until  the  present  French  republic 
enacted  the  legislation  which  the  Pope  now  defies.  That  legis- 
lation merely  seeks  to  divorce  the  Church  from  the  State,  just 
as  was  done  by  the  leaders  of  the  French  Revolution. 

The  government  of  France  is  today  seeking  to  do  no  more 
than  that  which  our  own  forefathers  did,  and  which  the 
Catholics  themselves  do  in  our  own  country.  The  French 
government  desires  to  put  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  same 
level  as  that  occupied  by  all  other  denominations.  If  the 
Catholics  of  France  accepted  the  new  laws  of  the  republic, 
and  put  them  into  operation,  they  would  occupy  substantially 
the  same  position  as  that  occupied  by  Catholics  in  America. 
Consequently,  the  reader  will  understand  at  once  that  there  is 
no  question  of  conscience  or  religion  involved.  It  is  a  wrestle 
for  power.  Who  shall  be  greater  in  France,  the  Pope  or  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  republic?  The  Pope  is  asking 
the  individual  Catholic  to  defy  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which 
he  lives.  Would  we  tolerate  such  a  thing  as  that  in  America  \ 
Would  any  American  Catholic  think  for  one  moment  of  lifting 
his  hand  defiantly  against  the  police  power  of  the  State? 
Certainly  not.  The  idea  is  preposterous.  The  State  would 
not  attempt  to  control  the  Catholic,  the  Baptist,  the  Methodist, 
the  Episcopalian  or  the  Presbyterian  in  any  matter  of  con- 
science; but  the  State  has  a  perfect  right  to  say  in  what 
manner  religious  corporations  shall  be  formed.  It  is  a  part  of 
the  police  power  of  our  Government  to  regulate  the  manner 
in  which  corporations,  religious  or  otherwise,  shall  constitute 
and  conduct  themselves.  No  sensible  Catholic  in  all  the  broad 
scope  of  this  American  republic  would  think  for  one  moment 
of  denying  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  State  the 
right  to  use  precisely  the  same  legislative  power  which  the 
Church  is  now  combatting  in  France. 


With  Brisbane  at  Delmonico's. 


i. 

For  months  and  months  Mr.  Arthur  Brisbane,  the  great 
editor  of  the  Hearst  Newspapers,  had  been  urging  me  to  come 
to  New  York,  to  take  hold  of  an  oar  on  board  the  wonderfully 
constructed  trireme  of  William  Randolph. 

From  letters,  the  pressure  grew  to  telegrams,  and  the  im- 
pression was  gradually  engraved  upon  my  mind  that  unless  I 
dropped  everything  and  flew  to  the  rescue,  the  Hearst  news- 
papers would  suffer  irreparable  damage. 

Finally,  there  came  over  the  heated  wires  the  Brisbane 
distres-eaD  of  "Do  Come!"  and  I  could  resist  no  longer. 

Xot  being  able  to  bear  the  idea  of  what  would  happen  if  I 
did  not  go.  I  telegraphed  Brisbane  that  he  might  expect  me 
on  a  certain  day.  I  was  also  particular  to  specify  the  right 
time  of  my  arrival  because  it  seemed  a  pity  to  have  Mr.  Hearst 
in  his  automobile  miss  the  right  train  and  meet  the  wrong  one. 

So  I  put  off  from  Thomson  Thomaston  Thomas  Thomasville 
Tompson  Thomason  Tomson  Tompkins. 

That's  where  I  live. 

The  name  of  the  place  has  turned  my  hair  prematurely  gray, 
but  nothing  can  break  my  toe-holt  on  the  local  situation,  and 
I  expect  to  live  just  as  long  as  I  possibly  can  at  Thomson 
Thomaston  Thomas  Thomasville  Thompson  Thomaston  Tom- 
son  Tompkins. 

And  a  smart  little  town  it  is.  too.  We  have  electric  lights 
that  keep  you  busy  buying  bulbs:  we  have  an  artesian  well 
from  which  a  steam  pump  extracts  the  water;  and  we  have  a 
Town  Government  which  may  be  somewhat  of  a  myth  and  a 
joke  to  Vagrants,  Pool  Rooms.  Blind  Tigers  and  Keepers  of 
pig-stye  nuisances,  but  which  is  a  dreadful  reality  to  taxpayers. 

Please  do  not  laugh.  This  is  no  joke.  It  is  solemn  state- 
ment'of  melancholy  fact. 

But.  as  I  was  saying.  I  boarded  the  cars  at  the  simple  little 
town  where  I  live,  and  was  taken  to  Xew  York,  with  the  cus- 
tomary missing  of  connections  and  enjoyable  delays  which 
have  given  the  Southern  Railroad  the  very  worst  name  among 
all  the  law-breaking  public-be-damned-Railroads. 

In  spite  of  all  that  the  Southern  Railroad  could  do.  I  finally 
landed  in  Xew  York. 

McGregor,  my  traveling  companion,  and  I  waited  in  the 
depot,  in  a  well-bred  manner,  until  the  jostling  crowd  of  ferry 


158  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


and  car  passengers  should  scatter.  We  wanted  Mr.  Hearst  to 
have  plenty  of  elbow  room  for  his  automobile  when  he  should 
come  up  to  the  front  entrance  looking  for  me.  The  crowd  lost 
no  time  in  dispersing  itself  in  various  directions.  In  a  little 
while,  Mac  and  I  were  almost  alone  at  the  front  entrance  of 
the  depot.  Then  we  looked  about  for  Mr.  Hearst's  automobile. 
'Twasn't  there ! 

William  Randolph  was  nowhere  to  be  seen. 

Then  we  concluded  that  Mr.  Brisbane  must  have  come 
around  in  has  carriage  to  meet  us,  and  we  began  to  inspect 
the  carriages.    But  Brisbane's  carriage  wasn't  there. 

Assuming  at  once  that  both  Hearst  and  Brisbane  had  been 
kept  away  from  the  depot  by  circumstances  over  which  they 
had  no  control,  I  began  to  look  around  for  the  Messenger  Boy 
that  I  felt  sure  must  have  been  sent  to  seek  us  and  to  deliver 
a  message  from  my  illustrious  friends  Hearst  and  Brisbane. 

In  vain  did  my  eager  eyes  search  the  regions  about  for  a 
messenger  boy  who  might  seem  to  be  looking  for  a  small  man 
from  Thomson  Thomas  Tompkins  and  the  rest  of  it. 

Sighing  a  weary  sigh,  I  told  Mac  we  would  take  a  cab  for 
the  Hoffman  House. 

This  we  straightway  did,  and  in  about  five  minutes  we 
alighted  at  the  side  entrance  of  that  imposing  hotel. 

When  we  travel  together  Mac  invariably  carries  the  purse, 
and  on  this  occasion  when  we  alighted  from  the  cab  it  was 
Mac's  part  of  the  performance  to  settle  with  the  cabman. 

"How  much?"  says  Mac. 

"Three  seventy-five,"  says  the  cabman,  grim  as  death. 
"What?"  asked  Mac,  cupping  his  ear. 

"Three  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents,"  said  the  cabman  with 
extreme  deliberation  and  distinctness. 

I  was  almost  in  tears,  for  it  was  my  money,  you  see;  and 
whenever  Mac  hesitates  a  moment  about  spending  it,  the  case 
is  alarming.  So  I  said,  "Mac,  step  there  to  the  clerk's  window 
and  ask  if  the  charge  is  right." 

Mac  strode  along  the  corridor,  while  I  followed  slowly  and 
respectfully.    Says  Mac  to  the  clerk: 

"How  much  ought  the  cabman  to  charge  me  from  the  Penn- 
sylvania Railroad  depot  to  your  hotel?" 

Said  the  clerk  to  Mac: 

"How  much  does  the  cabman  want?" 

Innocently  Mac  fell  into  the  hole. 

Said  Mac: 

"He  wants  to  charge  $3.75." 
Said  the  clerk: 

"Pay  it  at  once.    You're  getting  off  light." 

The  clerk  didn't  know  that  I  was  travelling  with  Mac,  else 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


159 


he  would  not  have  glanced  at  me  solemnly  and  winked,  when 
Mac  had  gone  back  to  lower  my  available  assets  to  the  extent 
of  $3.75. 

But  the  clerk  did  look  at  me  solemnly  and  wink  his  eye. 
The  scamp. 

When  I  came  to  settle  my  bill  at  the  hotel  a  few  clays  later, 
I  had  reason  to  suspect  that  the  cabman  who  charged  me  $3.75 
for  a  five  minutes  ride  in  a  one-horse  hack  was  related  by  blood 
and  marriage  to  the  Hoffman  House  management. 

But  that's  neither  here  nor  there. 

Subsequent  journeys  to  Xew  York  taught  me  how  to  tip  a 
station  boy  with  25  cents  and  thus  get  a  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
cab  which  would  carry  me  almost  anywhere  for  35  cents;  but 
that,  you  see,  was  later. 

If  ever  you  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  Xew  York  cab  driver, 
may  the  Lord  have  compassion  upon  you. 

We  registered.  We  were  assigned  rooms.  Then  we  took  up 
the  question  of  Hearst  and  Brisbane.  How  were  we  to  let 
our  illustrious  friends  know  that  I  was  there?  We  debated 
the  subject  seriously.  Finally.  Ave  decided  to  blaze  away  on 
the  telephone. 

During  the  remainder  of  the  day,  we  made  every  effort  to 
get  in  touch  with  my  illustrious  friends.  No  go.  Apparently, 
I  had  been  forgotten. 

All  next  day  we  labored  with  the  Hearst  office,  trying  to 
reach  my  illustrious  friends.    No  go. 

That  night.  I  felt  bad.    Real  bad. 

That  night  I  could  have  read  one  of  Senator  Beveiidge's 
magazine  articles  without  laughing  at  Bevericlge. 

Whenever  I  am  that  low  down  in  spirits,  I'm  almost  at  the 
jumping  off  place.  If  there  had  been  any  air-tube  passage 
back  to — you  know  the  name  now,  don't  you? — I  wouldn't 
have  lost  a  minute  in  going  in  at  the  New  York  end  of  it, 
and  signalling  the  other  end  for  suction. 

You  see,  we  country  people  can  never  get  accustomed  to  the 
ways  of  city  folks. 

City  people  sometimes  appear  to  us  to  be  selfish,  inhospitable, 
and  neglectful  of  the  genial  courtesies  of  life,  when  they  don't 
mean  to  be  so  at  all. 

Mr.  Hearst  and  Mr.  Brisbane  are  such  extremely  busy  men 
that  we  must  make  large  allowances  for  their  seeming  lack  of 
attention  to  one  whom  they  had  summoned  from  a  distant 
State. 

On  the  third  day.  our  patient  persistence  was  gloriously 
rewarded.  We  actually  got  in  touch  with  my  illustrious 
friends. 


160  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

After  that,  everything  was  most  pleasant  and  satisfactory. 

"Meet  me  at  Delmonico's  tomorrow  at  11  and  take  lunch 
with  me."   Or,  perhaps,  he  said  "12  o'clock:"  no  matter. 

Brisbane's  invitation  was  gladly  accepted. 

Next  day,  I  shambled  up  town  in  my  awkward  way,  stop- 
ping here  and  there  to  make  inquiries. 

Country  people  are  rather  helpless  in  big  cities. 

Getting  about  in  New  York  is  a  formidable  task  to  a  shy 
man  like  me. 

That  day  I  practiced  at  the  mark  considerably  before  I  hit  it. 

Sometimes  I  found  myself  above  Delmonico's;  sometimes 
below;  sometimes  to  the  left;  again  to  the  right. 

Finally,  victory  perched  upon  my  banners  and  I  located 
Delmonico's.  I  presume  you  know  what  it  is.  Delmonico's 
is  one  of  the  most  famous  restaurants  of  the  world. 

To  take  luncheon  there  was  an  event :  to  take  it  with  Arthur 
Brisbane  was  an  epoch. 

I  was  a  trifle  late,  and  he  was  waiting  for  me,  book  in  hand. 

The  great  editor  reads,  even  on  the  run.  If  there  is  any 
good  thing  in  that  book,  you  may  bet  your  bottom  dollar  that 
Brisbane  found  it,  and  worked  it  up  into  an  editorial. 

It's  a  habit  he  has.  Few  of  the  celebrites  have  kept  out  of 
the  Appropriation  clause  of  the  Brisbane  mind.  Huxley, 
Darwin,  Spencer,  Carlyle,  Euskin, — each  in  his  turn  has  gone 
into  the  Brisbane  hopper  and  been  ground  into  Hearst 
editorials. 

So  much  the  better. 

Hidden  away  in  books,  the  wisdom  of  those  sages  would 
have  been  lost  to  the  average  man. 

Brisbane  rendered  the  world  a  service  when  he  cast  the  heavy 
metal  into  his  pot,  melted  it  up,  and  issued  it  in  small  coin 
stamped  with  his  individual  and  powerful  impress. 

As  an  interpreter  of  the  mighty  dead,  he  has  done  vast  good, 
to  say  nothing  of  his  own  immense  contributions  to  the  cause 
of  popular  education. 

Putting  the  book  aside,  Brisbane  rose,  greeted  me  cordially, 
and  led  the' way  into  the  splendid  dining  room. 

I  felt  as  much  at  home  there  as  a  blacksmith  looks  in  his 
Sunday-go-to-meeting  clothes.  On  this  account,  and  a  few 
others,  I  said  little,  and  Brisbane  did  the  talking  while  we 
waited  to  be  served. 

Brisbane  is  not  imposing  in  personal  appearance.  He  is 
neither  tall  nor  large;  he  has  no  Presence.  He  is  inclined  to 
baldness,  stoops  rather  than  carries  himself  erect,  and  would 
never  cause  a  casual  passer  by  to  turn  for  a  second  look.  When 
he  talks  his  words  come  from  his  lips  as  though  they  were 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  161 


being  pushed  out  through  the  small  end  of  a  funnel.  There 
is  an  impression  of  tenseness,  of  concentration,  of  incisiveness, 
of  compactness;  and  every  thought  is  set  forth  in  clear-cut 
simple  strength.  He  is  so  sharp  in  his  mental  sight  and  so  apt 
in  working  his  vivid  thought  that  he  is  sometimes  witty— 
almost. 

Never  quite  so. 

His  mental  view  takes  in  a  situation  so  fully  that  his  com- 
ment upon  the  absurdities  of  it  almost  attains  humor. 
Almost,  but  not  quite. 

His  eye  is  so  keen  for  contrasts  that  he  seizes  upon  every 
detail  of  a  horrible  condition,  and  in  sketching  it  with  his 
pen  he  almost  reaches  pathos. 

Never  more  than  that. 

To  melt  into  tears  himself,  and  thus  be  able  to  draw  the 
tears  from  your  eyes,  is  foreign  to  his  nature.  Penetrating, 
clear-mrnded,  wonderfully  gifted  with  the  power  of  expression, 
of  condensation,  of  seizing  upon  the  strongest  points  of  any 
subject;  rich  in  illustration,  boundless  in  knowledge  of  men 
and  things,  a  fighter  of  inexhaustible  resource— such  is  Bris- 
bane. In  general,  most  considerate  of  others  and  most  atten- 
tive to  small  courtesies,  you  feel  that  if  you  got  in  his  way,  the 
locomotive  of  his  fixed  purpose  would  crush  you  without  hesi- 
tation or  remorse. 

His  forehead  is  curiously  cut  up  with  wrinkles.  His  brow 
seems  to  be  laid  off  in  three  terraces,  the  first  two  of  which 
recede  slightly,  while  the  third  bulges  boldly  forward,  giving 
his  dome  of  thought  a  slight  resemblance  to  one  of  those  Dutch 
or  Flemish  houses  where  the  third  story  hangs  over  to  peep 
at  the  ground  floor. 

A  very  remarkable  head — that  of  Brisbane — massive  above 
and  in  front  of  the  ears,  being  both  wide  and  lofty — in  fact  a 
most  intellectual  head.  You  feel  that  he  has  read  much, 
thought  much,  looked  through  all  shams  sounded  most  preten- 
sions and  found  them  hollow;  and  that  at  heart  he  is  a  well- 
bred,  even  tempered  cynic — playing  the  game  with  the  in- 
flexible determination  to  win. 

His  voice  is  low,  musical,  distinct.  He  speaks  rapidly.  And 
when  he  speaks  he  invariably  sa}^s  something  worth  hearing. 

I  cannot  imagine  Brisbane  saying  anything  silly,  or  feeble. 
Wrong  he  may  be  and  often  is,  but  never  is  he  weak.  Non- 
sense I  have  read  in  his  writings,  error  I  have  heard  fall  from 
his  lips,  but  the  will-power  and  mental  strength  of  the  man 
bears  off  even  his  errors  in  apparent  triumph. 

I  never  agreed  with  him — nor  he  with  me.  He  knows  when 
he  has  said  something  that  I  reject;  and  I  know  when  he 
differs  from  me;  and  we  let  it  go  at  that. 


162  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


That's  the  best  way,  after  all. 

In  clue  time,  we  were  served  and  we  ate. 

Of  many  things  Brisbane  talked  during  the  meal,  and  upon 
all  subjects  he  was  instructive.  I  listened  with  admiration; 
and  why  not? 

My  companion  at  table  is  the  best  paid  editor  on  earth. 

Milton  got  $25  for  Paradise  Lost;  Shakespeare  was  consid- 
ered lucky  to  have  cleared  a  few  thousand  pounds  upon  all  of 


MEN  OF  LITERARY  GENIUS  NO  LONGER  LIVE  ON  THE  CRUMBS 
PROM  THE  RICH  MAN'S  TABLE. 

his  plays  after  a  life  time  of  labor;  Wordsworth  was  ever 
poor;  Coleridge  ate  the  bread  of  dependence;  Robert  Burns 
lived  and  died  in  comparative  squalor. 

Arthur  Brisbane  earns  $47,500  per  year  with  his  brains 
and  pen. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


163 


Said  Brisbane  to  me: 

"Mrs.  Clarence  Mackay  told  me  a  few  days  ago  that  her 
winter  sojourn  in  the  South  was  spoiled  by  seeing  the  little 
children  who  work  in  the  South  Carolina  Cotton  Mills  going 
home  from  their  work  after  dark,  and  lighting  their  way  across 
the  fields  with  lanterns.  Suppose  you  write  something  on 
that." 

Afterwards.  I  did  write  something  on  that. 
Brisbane  said, 


THIS  IS  THE  SIGHT  THAT  SPOILED  THE  PLEASURE  OF  MRS. 
CLARENCE  MACKAY  DURING  HER  WINTER 
STAY  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

"I  was  at  George  Gould's  not  long  ago.  He's  very  fond  of 
your  Story  of  France.  Reads  it  so  intently  that  his  wife  said  to 
me  'Mr.  Brisbane,  I  wish  you'd  take  that  red  book  away  from 
George — he  has  it  in  his  hands  nearly  all  the  time.'  " 

Curious  that  George  Gould  should  be  reading  a  book  which 
holds  as  much  of  the  author's  heart  and  soul  as  was  ever 
breathed  into  printed  pages — a  book  which  was  so  aggressively 

7— Sketches 


164  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


radical  in  its  plea  for  oppressed  humanity  that  the  blue  pencil 
of  the  publisher's  Reader  ruined  some  of  its  most  important 
chapters. 

But  I  was  a  despised  Populist  in  those  days — an  outlaw 
whom  everyone  could  revile  and  outrage  with  impunity;  and 
among  other  bitter  pills  which  I  had  to  swallow  was  the 
destruction  of  scores  of  pages  of  my  principal  book. 

Said  Brisbane  to  me: 

"Suppose  you  take  charge  of  Hearst's  Morning  American, 
at  $10,000  per  year.  You  could  come  down  to  the  office  once 
a  day,  look  over  a  few  exchanges,  dictate  an  editorial,  and  then 
have  the  remainder  of  your  time  to  give  to  your  more  serious 
literary  labors. 

"If  within  the  year  you  can  make  a  success  out  of  the  Amer- 
ican, you  can  practically  fix  your  own  salary  thereafter.  Of 
course,  if  you  don't  make  the  American  a  success,  Hearst  will 
have  no  further  use  for  you." 

To  the  point,  you  see. 

But  nothing  came  of  it.  The  Presidential  Campaign  was 
on;  it  was  necessary  to  wait  till  after  the  election;  and  after 
the  election  I  fell  an  easy  prey  to  our  Town  Topics  friend, 
Col.  Mann. 

When,  upon  a  later  day,  I  told  Brisbane  about  the  arrange- 
ment with  our  Town  Topics  friend  he  remarked  quietly  and 
with  decision, 

"He's  a  d — d  old  rascal;  —  simply  wants  to  exploit  you." 

In  the  course  of  our  conversation,  mention  was  made  of  a 
certain  well  known  Special  Correspondent  of  Newspapers. 

"He  doesn't  know  anything,"  said  Brisbane.  "Besides,  he 
has  brown  eyes.  You  never  saw  a  brown-eyed  man  that  had 
any  sense.    Grey  eyes  are  the  eyes  of  genius. 

"There  was  Csesar,  born  of  a  black-eyed  race,  but  having 
grey  eyes.  Napoleon,  born  of  a  black-eyed  race  had  grey 
eyes,"  and  so  on. 

He  said  all  this  quite  earnestly,  with  every  indication  of 
settled  conviction. 

Naturally,  I  took  notice  of  the  color  of  Brisbane's  eyes. 

They  are  grey. 

At  the  same  time,  he  was  noting  the  color  of  mine.  They 
are  grey. 

To  this  hour  I  am  uncertain  whether  Brisbane  was  hoaxing 
me,  or  whether  he  actually  believes  that  queer  thing  about 
grey  eyes. 

Beginning  with  Webster  and  Robert  Burns,  I  could  enroll 
a  list  of  black-eyed  men  of  genius  that  would  convince  even 
Brisbane  that  his  theory  about  grey  eyes  is  more  curious  than 
sound. 


Sketches  :  Histoetcal,  Literary,  Etc.  165 


It  was  an  enjoyable  meal,  seasoned  with  much  Brisbane 
knowledge  of  men  and  things,  but  we  couldn't  tarry  forever, 
even  at  Delmonico's,  so  Brisbane  tipped  the  waiter  50c.  in  cash, 
and  had  the  luncheon  charged  to  his  regular  account. 

A  very  careful  man  is  Brisbane  about  giving  tips.  It's  a 
part  of  his  religion.  He  defends  and  glorifies  the  tipping 
system  in  his  editorials. 


MR.    BRISBANE    AMUSES    HIMSELF    BY    ANNOUNCING  THE 
STARTLING  THEORY  AS  TO  THE  COLOR  OF  THE 
EYES  OF  MEN  OF  GENIUS. 


This  is  one  of  the  Brisbane  eccentricities  that  I  can  no  more 
understand  than  I  can  understand  why  he  editorially  alludes 
to  Joe  Gans,  the  negro  prize  fighter,  as  "a  colored  gentleman.*' 

II. 

Upon  one  occasion,  after  he  had  completed  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  Government  in  the  Italian  States,  Napoleon  exclaimed : 


166  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


"My  God !  how  scarce  men  are !  In  Italy,  I  have  been  able 
to  find  but  one — Melzi." 

In  pur  own  day,  the  thing  which  is  scarce  is  that  which 
Napoleon  found  so  scarce  in  the  decadent  Italy  of  his  time — 
manhood.  You  may  find  a  score  of  brilliant  minds,  where  you 
will  find  one  man. 

What  is  meant  by  intellectual  greatness,  we  all  understand. 
What  is  meant  by  a  great  man,  perhaps  is  not  so  well  under- 
stood. 

When  we  say  that  one  is  a  great  man,  we  mean  that  he 
towers  above  other  men  in  those  elemental  qualities  which 
round  out  his  character,  and  give  him  a  superority  which 
attracts  attention  and  compels  respect.  Those  qualities  are 
courage — moral  as  well  as  physical — honesty,  truthfulness, 
loyalty  to  conviction,  fidelity  to  duty,  boldness  of  initiative, 
tenacity  to  purpose,  loftiness  of  aim,  purity  of  motive,  the 
strength  to  stand  for  what  he  thinks  is  right,  though  he  stand 
alone;  the  patience  to  work,  and  to  wait.  No  matter  how 
much  the  world  may  scoff  and  jeer  and  disparage,  he  knows 
that  his  work  is  good — for  all  true  men  know  their  true  worth. 
Therefore  the  true  man  goes  forward  with  his  work,  unhasting 
yet  unresting,  as  the  stars  go. 

To  be  an  intellectual  giant  is  one  thing.  To  be  a  Great  Man 
is  another.  One  may  have  a  grand  personality,  and  yet  not 
have  a  grand  intellect.  On  the  other  hand,  one  may  have  a 
grand  intellect,  and  not  possess  grandeur  of  personality. 

For  instance :  Lord  Bacon  had  one  of  the  greatest  of  minds, 
yet  he  was  one  of  the  most  ignoble  of  men.  His  intellect  was 
transcendent,  broad,  deep,  creative,  powerful.  But  he  was 
mean,  cowardly,  false-hearted;  true  to  nothing  and  to  nobody. 

Eousseau  possessed  creative  genius  of  a  high  order.  His 
book,  The  Social  Contract,  probably  changed  the  destinies  of 
modern  Europe.  But  Eousseau  himself,  as  a  man,  was  beneath 
contempt. 

Edgar  Poe  was  a  great,  original,  creative  genius;  as  a  manv 
he  was  pitifully  small  and  weak. 

Take  Rudyard  Kipling.  Here,  again,  we  have  mental  great- 
ness :  here  again  we  fail  to  find  a  man.  He  allowed  his  brother- 
in-law — Ballistier  is  the  name,  I  believe — to  lash  him  with  a 
whip  on  the  public  highway,  and  he  did  not  then  or  ever 
afterwards  resent  the  assault.  Yet  this  contemptible  coward 
has  exerted  all  the  powers  of  his  great  intellect  to  fan  into 
flame  the  militarism  of  Great  Britain,  and  stir  up  in  the 
Englishman  a  savage  lust  for  battle  and  blood  and  conquest. 

Curran  was  a  great  advocate,  a  great  orator:  he  was  a  piti- 
fully small  man. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  167 


O'Connell  was  a  great  advocate,  a  great  orator,  and  a  great 
man. 

Patrick  Henry  was  the  greatest  orator  since  Demosthenes — 
and,  like  Demosthenes,  failed  in  being  a  great  man. 

Charles  J ames  Fox  was  great  both  in  Intellect  and  Manhood. 
After  his  preliminary  mistakes,  due  to  environment  and  vicious 
training,  his  nobility  of  heart  and  grandeur  of  mind  swung 
him  into  the  proper  position  and  made  him  the  greatest  Eng- 
lish Statesman  of  his  time.  Battling  always  for  those  rights 
of  the  individual  man  which  some  people  call  Democracy, 
others  call  Republicanism,  others  call  Liberalism,  but  which, 
by  whatever  name  called,  are  the  great  elementary  principles 
upon  which  all  just  Government  of  man  by  man  must  be 
founded,  his  career  is  one  of  the  most  glorious  that  history 
records. 

On  the  other  hand,  William  Pitt,  the  lifelong  rival  of  Fox, 
possessed  a  great  mind,  but  was  not  a  great  man.  He  was 
cold,  mean,  selfish,  theatrical,  narrow,  envious,  an  apostate 
from  principle,  a  slave  to  Power,  a  recreant  to  his  own  sens& 
of  Duty. 

Just  as  one  may  have  a  great  intellect  and  not  be  a  great 
man,  so  one  may  possess  those  qualities  which  make  a  great 
man,  without  possessing  those  mental  traits  which  constitute 
intellectual  greatness. 

George  Washington  was  a  great  man — a  very  great  man. 
But  he  was  by  no  means  a  genius.  His  mind,  indeed,  while 
broad,  was  somewhat  sluggish.  Mental  work  was  to  him  a 
labor  of  Hercules.  It  is  true  that  he  brought  to  it,  when 
once  aroused,  the  strength  of  Hercules,  but  the  Treasury  of 
Thought  owes  not  a  single  gem  to  George  Washington.  He 
lives  and  he  towers  into  an  immortality  which  few  men  will 
ever  rival,  and  none  will  ever  excel,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
he  possessed  in  rare  completeness  the  essential  qualities  of 
stalwart  manhood. 

In  comparison  with  Jefferson,  Washington's  mental  gifts 
shrink  into  insignificance,  but  when  Jefferson  is  contrasted 
with  Washington  as  a  man,  it  is  Jefferson  who  suffers  by  the 
comparison. 

Take  the  case  of  Marlborough  and  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 
Marlborough  was  a  great  General — one  of  the  best  that  ever 
handled  an  army.  In  mere  military  genius,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  he  was  inferior  to  Napoleon  himself.  But  there 
all  thought  of  comparison  must  be  abandoned.  As  a  man, 
Marlborough  was  nothing.,  A  more  despicable  specimen  of  the 
human  trouser-wearing  animal  than  he,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
conceive. 


168  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


But  Napoleon  was  even  greater  as  a  man  than  he  was  as  a 
Captain. 

Take  that  scene  on  the  deck  of  the  British  Man  of  War, 
Bellerophon : 

Napoleon  had  fallen  from  the  highest  pinnacle  of  human 
success  into  the  abyss  of  irretrievable  failure.  The  whole  world, 
including  his  own  flesh  and  blood — yes,  including  the  wife  of 
his  bosom — have  deserted  him.  His  enemies  have  trampled 
his  eagles  into  the  mud,  have  caged  him,  and  are  sending  him 
to  that  rocky  prison,  where  he  is  to  be  tortured  till  he  dies. 

A  British  Admiral,  in  obedience  to  the  brutal  orders  of  his 
Government,  approaches  his  captive,  and  says  to  him : 

"England  demands  your  sword." 

See  with  what  unbending  pride  Napoleon  straightens  him- 
self, sets  that  firm,  square  jaw,  fixes  that  hawk-like,  unquailing 
eye  and,  laying  his  hand  lightly  upon  his  sword,  stands  at  bay. 

This  is  manhood.  To  die  rather  than  submit  to  personal 
indignity;  to  be  true  to  one's  self  in  the  moment  of  universal 
disaster;  to  rise  above  all  that  circumstances  can  do  to  you— 
this  is  manhood.  And  on  board  that  British  ship,  where  he 
stood  a  helpless  captive,  the  sheer  manhood  of  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte backed  down  the  Admiral  of  the  British  Navy,  and 
backed  down  the  British  Government  itself.  This  triumph  of 
unaided  manhood,  is  to  my  mind  more  glorious  than  Marengo 
or  Austerlitz  or  Wagram. 

Take  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena,  caged  in  that  miserable  little 
cow-house.  Every  day  of  his  life  he  is  badgered,  tormented, 
nagged  at,  by  that  contemptible  jailer,  Sir  Hudson  Lowe. 
This  abominable  character  had  taken  it  into  his  head  that  he 
could  earn  his  own  promotion  from  his  official  masters  by 
heaping  indignities  upon  the  greatest  man  the  world  ever  saw. 
With  this  odious  conception  of  his  duty  controlling  his  course 
of  action,  Sir  Hudson  Lowe  one  day  announced  to  Bertrand 
that  every  day  thereafter  Napoleon  must  submit  himself  to 
the  personal  view  of  his  English  guards ;  and  that  if  necessary 
the  Englishmen  would  force  his  door  to  satisfy  themselves 
that  he  was  still  there. 

Again  Napoleon  revolted.  His  manhood  recoiled  against  the 
indignity.    Rousing  himself,  he  said: 

"Although  I  am  here  alone,  I  am  as  unconquered  as  when  I 
was  at  the  head  of  half  a  million  of  victorious  troops,  and 
gave  laws  to  half  of  Europe.  Let  them  break  down  the  door 
if  they  like,  but  I  will  kill  the  first  man  who  enters." 

And  again  the  Englishmen  backed  down.  And  again  the 
Government  backed  down. 

If  the  records  of  the  human  race  can  show  manhood  in  finer 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  169 

fullness  than  is  displayed  in  these  two  examples,  I  am  not 
aware  of  it. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  Mr.  Arthur  Brisbane  1 
Just  this: 

You  have  read  this  article  to  no  purpose  if  you  have  not 
already  understood  me  to  mean  that  Arthur  Brisbane's  is  one 


CAPTIVE  HALTS  THE  VICTORIOUS  ENGLISH  GOVERNMENT. 


of  the  great  intellects  of  this  generation.  It  is  extremely 
doubtful  if  he  has,  in  his  own  peculiar  field  of  mental  work, 
an  equal  anywhere  among  the  sons  of  men.  Therefore,  the 
question  of  his  own  intellectual  greatness  being  conceded,  one 
naturally  asks  himself: 

Is  Arthur  Brisbane,  also,  a  great  man? 

The  answer  depends  entirely  upon  the  point  of  view. 

In  one  respect  Mr.  Brisbane  seems  to  be  radically  deficient 
in  manhood.    He  allows  himself  to  become  submerged  in 


170  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Hearst;  engulfed  in  Hearst;  swallowed  up  in  Hearst,  losing 
all  identity  of  his  own.  For  every  bit  of  the  work  done  by 
Brisbane,  the  credit — save  among  the  initiated  few — goes  to 
Hearst.  The  outside  many,  who  are  unitiated,  suppose  that 
the  editorials  in  the  Hearst  newspapers  are  written  by  William 
Randolph  Hearst.  Even  when  Brisbane's  incisive,  luminous, 
powerful  editorials  are  published  in  book  form,  they  come  to 
you  under  the  name  of  "Hearst's  Editorials."  Therefore,  at 
first  blush  it  would  seem  that  Brisbane  lacks  those  essential 
qualities  of  great  manhood — bold  initiative,  fearless  assump- 
tion of  responsibility,  and  the  undying  determination  to  make 
one's  identity  felt. 

But  there  is  another  view — probably,  the  correct  one.  Mr. 
Brisbane  may  belong  to  that  class  who  believe  that  they  can 
accomplish  their  purpose  by  keeping  in  the  background;  by 
directing  others  from  behind  the  curtain;  and  by  putting 
others  forward,  and  working  through  these  nominal  masters. 

Richelieu  worked  behind  a  feeble  king,  and  thus  used  the 
king  as  a  tool  of  his  own.  The  astute  Minister,  working  always 
through  his  king,  broke  the  power  of  a  haughty  feudal  nobility 
so  effectually  that  the  turbulent  viceroys  of  one  generation 
became  the  servile  courtiers  of  the  next. 

Robert  Walpole,  working  behind  two  stupid  kings — George 
the  First  and  George  the  Second — and  thus  making  use  of 
these  royal  instruments — laid  in  England  the  solid  foundation 
of  Parliamentary  Government. 

The  Prussian  Statesman,  Stein,  working  behind  a  blockhead 
of  a  king,  abolished  feudal  abuses  and  built  upon  these  ruins 
the  glorious  democratic  institutions  which  have  made  Germany 
the  wonder  of  the  world. 

Now  it  may  be  that  Arthur  Brisbane,  years  and  years  ago, 
conceived  the  splendid  plan  of  getting  permission  of  the  young 
millionaire,  William  Randolph  Hearst,  and  working  through 
this  nominal  master  to  accomplish  his  own  purpose. 

It  may  have  occurred  to  his  profound  intellect  that  the  very 
best  way  to  serve  his  own  purpose  was  to  efface  himself;  sub- 
merge his  individuality;  stay  in  the  background;  direct  the 
play  from  behind  the  curtain;  and  thus  make  William  Ran- 
dolph Hearst  and  his  colossal  fortune  a  stalking  horse  for 
Socialism. 

If  this  was  Brisbane's  idea,  it  was  a  magnificent  conception. 
If  in  losing  his  own  identity,  or  appearing  to  lose  it,  in  that  of 
Hearst,  Mr.  Brisbane  deliberately  planned  a  renunciation  and 
a  sacrifice  of  himself,  then  there  dawns  upon  my  mind  a  con- 
ception of  his  grandeur  as  a  man,  that  would  lead  me  to  place 
him  far  in  advance  of  any  one  of  his  contemporaries. 

Goldsmith  beautifully  illustrated  the  same  idea,  operating 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


171 


"IS  BRISBANE  THE  POWER  BEHIND  THE  THRONE?" 


172  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


in  the  mind  of  a  lovely  girl,  in  the  play  "She  Stoops  to  Con- 
quer." The  same  idea  has  been  very  frequently  and  success- 
fully used  by  others  in  various  ways;  but  if  in  Brisbane's  case 
the  same  stratagem  has  been  employed,  then  it  has  been  made 
to  attain  the  sublime. 

In  other  words,  if  in  appearing  to  lose  his  own  identity  and 
individuality  in  Hearst,  the  purpose  of  Mr.  Brisbane  was  that 
of  making  a  huge  appropriation  of  the  Hearst  millions  for  the 
good  of  humanity,  then  I  would  say  that  the  quiet,  unpretend- 
ing gentleman,  who  writes  all  those  epoch-making  editorials, 
is  one  of  the  greatest  men  this  country  has  known. 

Using  Hearst  and  the  Hearst  millions  and  the  Hearst  news- 
papers, as  a  speaking  trumpet,  this  self-effacing  Socialist  is 
doing  a  greater  educational  work  than  all  the  other  Reformers 
put  together.  He  is  today  the  mightiest  Individual  Force 
that  acts  upon  Public  Opinion. 

I  wonder  if  Brisbane  suspected  that  thoughts  like  these 
might  be  passing  through  my  mind,  that  day  when  he  amused 
himself  by  talking  nonsense  to  me  about  grey  eyes — that  day 
when  we  lunched  together  at  Delmonico's. 


The  Roman  Catholic  Hierarchy  and 

Politics 

During  the  year  1906,  when  the  French  Ministry  was 
bringing  about  a  separation  of  Church  and  State,  in  order  that 
the  French  Republic  might  occupy  practically  the  same  ground 
upon  which  our  forefathers  reared  our  own  Government,  the 
temper  and  the  strength  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  America 
was  demonstrated  in  a  manner  which  ought  to.  have  aroused 
much  more  attention  than  it  did.  In  New  York,  Washington 
City,  and  other  great  centers  of  population,  indignation  meet- 
ings were  held,  in  which  our  sister  republic,  France,  was  de- 
nounced in  the  most  violent  language  for  doing  precisely  what 
the  founders  of  our  Government  did  at  the  beginning. 

The  greatest  mistake  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  the  Con- 
cordat of  1801,  in  which  he  came  to  an  agreement  with  Pope 
Pius  VII.,  which  virtually  chained  France  once  more  to  Super- 
stition, Idolatry  and  Priest-rule.  In  addition  to  power,  the 
Catholic  Hierarchy  was  given  annually  ten  million  dollars 
from  the  national  treasury.  This  money,  of  course,  was  raised 
by  taxation.  Therefore,  every  Frenchman,  whether  a  believer 
in  Christ,  or  not, — whether  Catholic,  or  anti-Catholic, — was 
compelled  to  contribute  towards  the  support  of  a  specially 
favored  priesthood.  In  the  course  of  time  this  situation  became 
intolerable.  One  of  the  disastrous  consequences  of  the  Con- 
cordat which  Napoleon  concluded  with  the  Pope,  was  the 
Prussian  war  of  1870,  which  was  precipitated  by  that  bigoted 
dupe  of  her  confessor,  the  Empress  Eugenie.  The  politicians 
of  the  Vatican  bitterly  hated  Prussia,  first,  because  it  was  a 
Protestant  country  and,  second,  because  it  opposed  the  Jesuits ; 
and,  manipulating  the  French  government  through  the  Em- 
press, France  was  precipitated  into  a  conflict  for  which  she 
was  not  prepared,  and  in  which  she  was  crushed. 

It  was  not,  however,  until  Clemenceau  became  a  member  of 
the  French  Cabinet,  that  the  formal  abrogation  of  the  treaty 
which  Napoleon  had  made  with  the  Pope  was  attempted. 
After  the  bitterest  opposition,  in  which  the  priesthood  resorted 
to  all  of  their  various  pious  frauds  and  complicated  wire- 
pulling, the  French  government  succeeded  in  putting  the  Cath- 
olic Church  on  the  same  footing  occupied  by  all  other  churches 
in  France.  In  this  struggle,  the  Roman  Hierarchy  was 
actuated  by  the  most  sordid  motives.  They  did  not  want  to 
lose  that  ten  million  dollars  per  year,  and  they  did  not  want  to 
lose  the  political  power  and  prestige  which  their  alliance  with 


174  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

the  government  gave  them.  They  angrily  resented  the  idea 
of  occupying  precisely  the  same  ground  as  that  occupied  by 
all  other  churches.  They  wanted  special  privilege  in  France, 
and  they  fought  stubbornly  to  maintain  it. 

The  wily  politicians  of  the  Vatican  made  the  most  of  the 
immense  progress  of  Catholicism  in  America.  The  purpose 
was  to  throw  the  public  opinion  of  the  United  States  in  the 
scales  against  the  French  government.  Our  Vice-President, 
Mr.  Fairbanks,  so  far  forgot  the  proprieties,  that  he  attended, 
in  Washington  City,  one  of  the  meetings  in  which  a  friendly 
government  was  outrageously  misrepresented  and  abused.  Not 
a  word  of  protest  or  disclaimer  did  the  Vice-President  utter. 

During  this  agitation,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  of  Baltimore,  a 
Jesuit  and  an  Ultra  Montaine,  was  conspicuous  for  the  violence 
and  the  untruthfulness  of  his  public  statements.  He  boldly 
declared  that  the  French  Ministry  hated  God  and  were  making 
war  upon  religion.  Of  course,  the  cardinal  knew  that  these 
statements  were  false.  The  cardinal  very  well  knew  that  those 
who  were  bringing  about  the  separation  of  Church  and  State 
in  France  were,  as  a  rule,  Catholics  themselves,  and  they  were 
simply  combatting  clericalism  and  the  special  privilege  which 
had  been  given  by  law  to  the  Catholic  priesthood. 

Bishop  Keiley,  of  the  diocese  of  Savannah,  Georgia,  felt  it 
his  duty  to  declare  that  if  the  State  of  Georgia  should  pass  a 
law  interfering  with  the  church  duties  of  a  Catholic,  "I  would 
be  the  first  to  announce  that  I  expected  the  people  of  my 
diocese  to  break  the  law.  The  Pope  is  supreme  and  has  au- 
thority from  God,  and  no  true  believer  would  hesitate  whether 
to  obey  the  law  of  God  or  man.  It  would  not  be  necessary  for- 
me to  make  any  announcement,  however;  for,  if  the  United 
States  should  attempt  anything  like  France  is  doing,  the 
Catholics  would  rise  of  their  own  accord  and  remove  the  bigots 
from  power.  The  Catholic  Church  needs  no  secular  arm  to 
protect  it." 

Here  we  have  the  same  spirit  of  clerical  pride,  arrogance 
and  assumption  of  identity  with  God,  which,  in  the  old  days, 
when  men  were  more  superstitious,  ignorant  and  idolatrous 
than  now,  compelled  a  German  emperor  to  stand  bare-footed 
three  days  in  the  snow,  knocking  in  vain  for  permission  to 
enter  Canossa  and  plead  his  case  with  the  Pope. 

The  Bishop  of  Savannah  is  as  much  a  supreme  power  as 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  for  all  historical  students  are  well  aware 
of  the  fact  that  the  Pope  is  simply  the  head  of  the  Church  by 
Clerical  usurpation,  and  that  in  fact  he  is  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
just  as  Keiley  is  the  Bishop  of  Savannah.  One  of  them  has  as 
much  authority  from  God  as  the  other. 

Those  who  have  carefully  watched  the  course  of  events,  of 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


175 


late  years,  have  not  been  slow  to  realize  that  in  every  great  city 
of  this  Union  the  Catholic  Hierarchy  controls.  The  political 
alliance  between  the  saloon-keeper  and  the  priest  is  an  open 
secret,  and  it  is  largely  responsible  for  the  utter  corruption 
that  marks  municipal  politics  everywhere. 

Cardinal  Gibbons  himself  has  been  unpleasantly  conspicuous 
during  recent  years,  and  has  been  vehemently  suspected  of 
making  political  deals,  first  with  one  of  the  old  parties  and 
then  with  the  other.  It  would  be  interesting  history  if  we 
could  learn  by  what  methods  Cardinal  Gibbons  and* Archbishop 
Ireland  have  been  able  to  secure  for  their  Church  so  many 
millions  of  dollars  of  public  money  on  the  strength  of  petitions 
signed  with  the  rude  marks  of  wandering  Indians.  If  the 
manner  in  which  the  Catholic  Church  draws  money  from  the 
Xational  Treasury  to  support  its  denominational  schools  among 
the  Indians  is  not  a  violation  of  both  the  letter  and  the  spirit 
of  our  Constitution,  then  there  can  be  no  case  cited  which  would 
be  an  outrage  upon  that  fundamental  law. 

In  the  City  of  Washington  itself,  the  Catholic  institutions 
are  constantly  drawing  money  from  the  public  funds.  In  one 
instance,  which  occurred  a  few  years  ago,  it  was  claimed  upon 
what  appeared  to  be  convincing  evidence,  that  these  appropria- 
tions were  obtained  from  the  Eepublican  leaders  upon  the 
distinct  promise  that  in  thirty  doubtful  congressional  districts 
the  Catholics  should  be  ordered  to  vote  the  Eepublican  ticket. 
It  is  a  coincidence,  which  may  or  may  not  be  significant,  that 
the  Catholics  did  get  those  appropriations  for  Washington 
institutions,  and  that  the  Republicans  did  carry  those  thirty 
doubtful  districts. 

In  the  spectacular  quarrel  and  correspondence  which  broke 
out  between  President  Roosevelt  and  Bellamy  Storer  and  his 
wife,  "dear  Maria,*'  anyone  who  wanted  to  get  at  the  true 
significance  of  the  situation  could  readily  see  that  while  Mr. 
Roosevelt  was  Governor  of  Xew  York  his  relations  with  Arch- 
bishop Ireland  had  been  exceedingly  close,  and  that  after 
Roosevelt  became  President  he  wanted  to  use  all  of  his  influence 
with  the  Pope  to  have  something  good  done  for  the  archbishop ; 
but  "dear  Maria/'  forgetting  Talleyrand's  famous  caution  to 
his  diplomatic  agents,  displayed  zeal.  She  was  imprudent; 
talked  too  much ;  was  too  active :  created  scandal  in  diplomatic 
circles.  The  natural  result  was  that  Bellamy  and  "dear  Maria7' 
both  were  given  a  sharp  call-down,  and  were  loudly  disavowed 
and  repudiated. 

We  all  remember  Iioav  Grover  Cleveland  became  President. 
The  luckless  Burchard.  making  a  perfunctory  talk  in  the 
presence  of  Mr.  Blaine,  declared  that  the  three  evils  from 
which  this  country  had  suffered  most  were  "Rum,  Romanism 


176  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

and  Rebellion."  Within  twenty-four  hours,  every  Catholic 
voter  in  New  York  had  received  his  orders  from  the  hierarchy 
to  vote  against  Blaine.  Cleveland  was  declared  to  have  carried 
the  State  of  New  York,  which  gave  him  the  presidency,  but 
it  is  a  mooted  question  to  this  day  as  to  whether  the  Catholic 
politicians  of  Tammany  Hall  did  not  steal  the  majority  for 
him. 

As  to  Tammany  Hall  itself,  which  has  been  the  dictator  in 
National  Democratic  Conventions  and  the  despot  of  local 
politics  in  New  York  City,  it  is  nothing  in  the  world  but  the 
Catholic  Hierarchy  allied  to  the  bar-room  interests,  thus  con- 
trolling the  city.  Recently  they  have  increased  the  city  debt 
by  the  enormous  sum  of  $356,000,000.  This  great  metropolis 
of  America  is  but  a  huge  carcass,  upon  which  Tammany  and 
the  Catholic  Hierarchy  feed,  and  in  which  such  exploiters  of 
franchise  privileges  as  Thomas  F.  Ryan  grow  enormously 
wealthy  at  the  expense  of  the  common  people. 

Only  a  few  weeks  ago,  Anthony  Comstock,  acting  at  the 
instigation  of  the  Catholic  priests,  arrested  a  vender  of  news- 
papers, upon  the  ground  that  the  papers  which  he  was  selling 
were  abusive  to  the  Pope.  If  our  press  were  not  itself  in 
deadly  fear  of  the  stealthy  influence  of  the  Catholic  Hierarchy, 
this  act,  which  violates  the  freedom  of  the  press,  would  have 
been  denounced  in  thunder  tones  from  one  end  of  the  country 
to  the  other.  As  it  is,  not  a  whisper  has  been  heard.  Denounce 
the  President  as  much  as  you  like ;  distort  his  countenance  and 
character  by  caricature  and  cartoon ;  lie  about  him  to  any 
extent  that  you  please ;  abuse  Protestant  preachers  and  Prot- 
estant bishops  to  the  extent  that  your  malice  suggests.  Nobody 
will  interfere — the  freedom  of  the  press  protects  you;  but  it 
would  seem  that  in  New  York  there  is  to  be  one  great  and 
glorious  exception.  The  Pope  is  to  be  immaculate,  as  well  as 
infallible,  and  whoever  dares  to  print  and  circulate  anything 
against  him,  or  his  system,  is  to  be  treated  as  a  criminal. 

I  think  I  state  the  exact  truth  when  I  say  that  I  am  free 
from  religious  bigotry.  I  have  no  prejudice  whatever  against 
any  citizen  because  of  his  religious  faith.  I  have  the  utmost 
respect  for  the  individual  Catholic  who  honestly  believes  in 
his  creed;  but  the  difference  between  one  church  organization 
and  another  may  be  a  matter  of  extreme  political  importance, 
and  I  cannot  understand  how  any  student,  conversant  with 
political  history,  can  be  indifferent  to  the  peculiar  hierarchy 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  No  other  church  organization  claims 
to  exercise  the  right  to  say  what  books  its  members  shall  read. 
No  other  church  openly  takes  part  in  political  affairs.  No 
other  church  sends  and  receives  ambassadors.  No  other  church 
holds  a  court,  at  which  royal  ceremonial  is  observed,  embassies 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


177 


from  foreign  governments  received,  and  far-reaching  questions 
of  international  policy  debated  and  decided.  There  is  not  a 
government  of  the  civilized  world,  at  whose  capital  the  Cath- 
olic Church  is  not  represented  by  a  resident  agent.  Xo  question 
of  national  policy,  which  may  directly  or  indirectly  affect  the 
Catholic  Church,  is  decided  upon  until  the  Pope  has  been 
consulted.  Throughout  the  civilized  world  run  the  threads  oif 
Papal  diplomacy,  and  the  most  prominent  feature  of  recent 
political  progress  has  been  the  wonderful  success  of  Catholic 
statesmanship. 

In  Spain  the  progressive  elements  have  striven  in  vain  to 
shake  off  the  yoke  of  Home.  In  Portugal  mediaevalism  is 
still  an  anomaly  and  an  abomination.  In  Austria  Catholicism 
is  as  supreme  as  it  was  in  the  days  when  the  Jesuits  and  the 
Inquisition  met  and  turned  back  the  reformation  of  Huss, 
Wyclif,  Calvin  and  Luther.  In  France,  it  is  true,  clericalism 
has  been  unhorsed.  In  Italy,  where  the  Pope  is  seen  at  close 
range,  and  where  the  workings  of  the  hierarchy  are  known 
intimately,  the  people  have  shown  a  determined  inclination  to 
revolt  against  Vatican  tyranny.  Recently  the  Catholics  of  the 
city  of  Rome  itself  elected  to  the  mayorality  a  man  who  is  at 
once  a  declared  enemy  of  the  Catholic  Church,  a  Mason  who 
occupies  a  high  office  in  the  order,  and  who  is,  besides,  a  Jew. 
In  fact,  the  double  lives  led  by  the  Roman  Conclave,  and  the 
deep  duplicity  and  selfishness  which  mark  the  policies  of  the 
Vatican,  are  so  well  known  in  Italy,  and  so  thoroughly  detested, 
that  the  secular  arm  of  the  State  has  been  necessary  to  the 
protection  of  the  lives  of  the  priests. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  German  emperor,  like  his  remote 
predecessor,  has  been  made  to  go  to  Canossa.  The  laws  which 
expelled  the  Jesuits  have  been  repealed.  The  growth  of  democ- 
racy in  the  empire  has  been  so  phenomenal  that  the  shrewd 
politicians  of  the  Catholic  Church  took  advantage  of  the  help- 
lessness of  the  government,  forced  an  alliance  upon  it,  and  thus 
got  for  themselves  what  they  wanted,  while  giving  to  the 
government  the  majorities  needful  to  the  passage  of  govern- 
mental measures. 

In  Protestant  England  the  Catholic  Church  is  now  the  power- 
behind  the  throne.  The  most  influential  members  of  the  aris- 
tocracy are  devoted  Catholics.  The  trend  of  conversation 
among  the  rich  English  lords  is  distinctly  towards  the  Catholic 
Church.  When  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  ambassador  from  the 
United  States  to  the  Court  of  St.  James,  gave  his  first  grand 
banquet  to  the  nobility  of  Great  Britain,  not  a  single  Prot- 
estant divine  was  invited.  Catholic  cardinals  were  there,  upon 
equal  footing  with  the  Prince  of  "Wales,  but  no  man  of  God 
tainted  with  the  touch  of  the  Reformation  was  present. 


178  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


That  the  secret  influence  of  the  Eoman  Hierarchy  controls 
Congress  is  shown  by  facts  which  cannot  be  disputed,  and 
which  cannot  otherwise  be  explained.  Why  was  it  that  the 
school  teachers  in  New  Mexico  could  not  be  instructed  to 
teach  the  English  language  in  the  public  schools?  Why  was 
it  that  the  continued  and  exclusive  use  of  the  Spanish  lan- 
guage was  sanctioned  by  law  in  this  American  territory  ?  The 
English  language  was  objectionable  to  the  Catholic  Hierarchy, 
because  it  would  carry  with  it  the  knowledge  of  the  English 
Bible;  and  the  Catholic  Church  did  not  want  any  Protestant 
Bibles  in  New  Mexico.  By  teaching  Spanish  in  New  Mexico, 
the  Catholic  Church  preserves  its  monopoly,  and  our  cowardly 
politicians  voted  as  the  priests  demanded  that  they  should. 

McKinley's  Cabinet  was  partly  Catholic,  and  the  influence 
which  the  Pope  exerted  upon  that  administration  was  shown 
by  the  way  in  which  the  War  Department  hastened  to  grant 
the  Catholics  a  portion  of  the  national  domain  at  West  Point. 
They  asked  for  some  of  the  Government  land  to  build  a  church 
on,  and  they  got  it.  Other  denominations  have  not  been  able; 
to  get  any  of  the  national  property. 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  Cabinet  was  partly  Catholic.  Attorney- 
General  Bonaparte  was  probably  the  selection  of  Cardinal 
Gibbons  for  that  high  position,  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
secret  of  why  the  Department  of  Justice  did  not  bring  Edward 
H.  Harriman  and  Thomas  F.  Ryan  to  the  bar,  and  punish 
them  for  crimes  which  they  had  notoriously  committed,  was 
that  these  two  gigantic  criminals  were  both  liberal  friends  of 
the  Catholic  Hierarchy.  Ryan  gave  a  million  dollars  for  the 
building  of  the  Catholic  cathedral  in  Richmond,  Ya.,  and 
Harriman's  gifts  to  the  Church  were  on  a  scale  of  the  same 
calculating  generosity. 

Wherever  the  Catholic  Church  controls,  it  persecutes.  No 
Protestant  can  safely  preach  or  sell  Bibles  in  Spain,  or  in 
Portugal,  or  in  South  America.  This  could  not  be  done  in 
Mexico  until  the  revolt  of  the  Liberals  against  the  Clericals. 
It  was  not  until  Mexico  threw  off  priest-rule  that  she  began  to 
make  those  magnificent  strides  upward  and  onward,  which 
have  excited  the  admiration  of  the  world. 

As  an  evidence  of  the  intolerance  of  the  Catholic  Church 
when  it  has  full  sway,  remember  that  it  was  made  a  felony  in 
Italy  to  read  or  to  vend  the  works  of  Charles  Dickens.  He 
had  visited  Italy ;  had  been  shocked ,  at  the  poverty  of  the 
people,  the  tyranny  of  the  priests,  the  idolatry  and  superstition 
which  prostituted  the  name  of  religion ;  and  he  wrote  a  descrip- 
tion of  conditions  as  he  saw  them,  just  as  he  wrote  about  the 
United  States,  and  about  his  own  country. 

In  the  Philippine  Islands,  shortly  before  their  occupation 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


179 


by  the  Americans,  torture  was  applied  to  captives  and  to 
heretics,  in  the  same  manner  that  it  was  applied  by  the  Inquisi- 
tion to  heretics  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Only  a  few  years  ago.  the 
Literary  Digest,  of  New  York,  copied  an  article  from  a  leading 
paper  in  South  America,  in  which  the  Inquisition  was  eulogized 
in  the  highest  terms,  and  the  rack,  the  wheel  and  the  stake  were 
hysterically  praised. 

In  Canada,  a  few  years  ago.  a  Catholic  newspaper  of  liberal 
tendencies  ventured  to  act  independently  of  the  hierarchy,  and 
to  oppose  the  Church  on  some  questions  of  policy  concerning 
the  schools.  The  hierarchy  was  so  powerful  that  it  actually 
compelled  the  postal  authorities  to  exclude  the  offending  news- 
paper from  the  mails.  The  Canadian  Government  did  not 
dare  to  punish  these  insolent  priests,  who  had  violated  Cana- 
dian laws  and  destroyed  legitimate  mail. 

Quite  recently,  the  present  Pope,  or  Bishop  of  Borne,  has 
declared  war  upon  what  he  rails  "Modernism.*'  He  is  alarmed 
at  the  growth  of  independent  thought.  His  purpose  is  that 
which  has  ever  actuated  the  head  of  a  hierarchy.  He  wishes 
to  discourage  research,  to  check  inquiry,  and  to  fasten  again 
the  rebellion  minds  of  men  to  the  old.  old  orthodoxy,  which 
was  never  >o  happy  as  when  the  world  took  in  a  literal  sense 
the  clerical  admonition  that  men  should  become  as  children. 
Papal  endorsement  has  been  given  unreservedly  to  the  dogma 
that  the  Protestant  religion  is  not  better  than  no  religion  at 
all.  The  papal  position  is  that  Protestantism  must  be  up- 
rooted and  cast  out  as  a  damnable  heresy.  And.  in  plain 
terms,  he  says  that  Catholicism  must  carry  out  its  mission 
"even  to  the  shedding  of  blood." 

Thus  the  spirit  of  Torquemada  and  of  Alva  is  abroad  again ! 

"Where  a  church  claims  and  exercises  the  right  to  exert 
political  influence,  it  behooves  good  citizens  to  study  the  history 
of  that  church  and  the  tendency  of  its  teachings. 

To  judge  a  tree  by  its  fruits  is  a  fair  rule.  Now  that  the 
Catholic  Church  is  likely  to  take  such  a  controlling  part  in 
our  national  affairs,  it  is  well  that  we  should  ask  ourselves  a 
few  questions. 

When  and  where  has  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  done  any- 
thing for  the  masses  of  the  people — for  the  sacred  cause  of 
freedom  of  labor,  freedom  of  vote,  freedom  of  speech,  freedom 
of  thought,  or  freedom  of  conscience  I 

When  has  it  ever  failed  to  side  with  enthroned  tyranny  as 
against  Reform. — from  the  days  of  Philip  II..  when  it  burnt 
one  hundred  thousand  men  who  dared  to  think  for  themselve-. 
down  to  the  day  in  1896.  when  the  Pope's  blessing  was  breathed 
upon  the  Spanish  flag,  and  his  prayers  went  with  the  troops 
who  were  to  burn  Cuban  houses  and  fields,  torture  and  slay 


180  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Cuban  patriots,  insult  and  outrage  Cuban  maids  and  matrons, 
and  make  a  smoking  hell  of  a  country  whose  people  demanded 
no  more  than  the  Catholics  of  Ireland  demanded  of  Protest- 
ant England,  and  upon  far  better  grounds? 

To  the  very  last,  the  Catholic  Church  stood  by  the  institution 
of  slavery,  and  was  the  last  to  give  up  her  slaves.  To  the  very 
last,  the  Catholic  Church  opposed  freedom  of  conscience  and 
of  worship.  To  the  very  last,  it  opposed  the  general  education 
of  the  masses,  and  is  today  the  mortal  enemy  of  the  public 
schools.  To  the  very  last,  it  opposed  self-government  by  the 
people,  and  is  today  the  staunch  defender  of  the  "Divine  Right 
of  Kings." 

A  very  particular  reason  why  the  people  of  this  country 
should  be  concerned  about  the  startling  growth  of  Catholic 
power  is  that  the  Catholic  Church  boasts  that  it  never  changes. 
The  good  Catholic  claims  today  that  the  Pope  is  infallible, 
and  that  all  the  Popes  have  been  true  and  worthy  vice-gerents 
of  Christ. 

He  claims  that  the  Protestant  is  a  heretic,  and  he  believes 
that  it  would  be  a  mercy  to  bind  him  upon  a  jagged  iron 
wheel  and  beat  said  heresy  out  of  him  with  a  club. 

He  believes  that  his  priest  can  pardon  sin  and  that  money 
liberally  spent  in  buying  prayers  can  lift  the  sinner  out  of  hell. 

He  believes  that  the  wine  of  the  Sacrament  is  the  actual 
blood  of  Christ,  and  the  bread  the  actual  body. 

We  are  all  prone  to  believe  that  which  is  constantly  said  and 
never  denied.  The  profound  policy  of  the  Catholic  Church 
is  to  cut  off  its  converts  from  the  world  and  keep  them  from 
hearing,  reading  or  thinking  anything  which  might  encourage 
doubt. 

The  Catholic  Church  wants  its  converts  to  have  faith  in  the 
priest,  faith  in  the  Church,  and  faith  in  the  Catholic  state- 
ment of  every  case. 

To  reach  this  result,  the  Pope  dictates  what  books  shall  be 
read,  what  newspapers  shall  be  patronized,  and  what  pictures 
shall  be  used. 

Pope  Leo  XIII.  revised  the  list  of  "Forbidden  Books."  He 
declared  that  the  new  rules  on  the  subject  of  "Forbidden 
Books"  were  so  mildly  formulated  that  it  would  be  easy  for 
good  Catholics  to  obey  the  new  rules. 

What  are  these  new  rules  which  a  Good  Catholic  must  ob- 
serve in  choosing  his  reading  matter? 

1.  "All  those  writings  which  were  prohibited  previous  to  tho 
year  1600,  except  where  special  decrees  have  since  made  excep- 
tions, are  prohibited  now." 

What  books  were  prohibited  previous  to  the  year  1600, 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc.  181 

and  which  of  those  books  have  been  acquitted  of  blame  during 
the  316  years  since  1600  I 

2.  "All  books  written  by  apostates,  heretic-,  schismatics,  are 
forbidden." 

Away  goes  your  Milton  and  your  Shakespeare,  your  Burns 
and  your  Byron,  your  Cowper  and  your  Wadsworth,  your 
Tennyson  and  your  Browning !    They  were  all  heretics. 

Hume  must  not  be  read,  nor  Gibbon,  nor  Hallan.  nor  Froude. 
nor  Carlisle.    They  were  all  heretics. 

A  good  Catholic  must  not  drink  the  pure  delight  of  Gold- 
smith's "Deserted  Village."  nor  must  he  ever  hang  enraptured 
over  the  "Greccian  Urn"  of  Keats,  nor  must  his  eye  ever  grow 
dim  as  he  reads  Byron's  verses  to  his  sister.  He  must  never 
walk  the  rich  fields  of  Charles  Reade  and  Charles  Dickens — 
never  laugh  with  Thackeray,  nor  sigh  with  Hood:  never  soar 
with  Shelley,  dream  with  Coleridge,  nor  view  the  gems  of 
Walter  Savage  Landor. 

All  the  golden  fruit  of  genius,  choicest  apples  of  literature's 
Gardens  of  Hesperides.  is  fruit  forbidden  to  a  good  Catholic— 
for  when  God  lit  the  lamp  of  genius  in  the  minds  of  these 
wonderfully  gifted  heretics  and  touched  their  souls  into  celes- 
tial music.  He  forgot  that  the  Pope  would  measure  all  the 
mental  universe  with  the  contemptible  little  tape-line  of  de- 
nominational intolerance. 

To  a  good  Catholic,  all  the  eloquence,  wit,  wisdom  and 
patriotism  of  American  history  is  a  lost  land,  for  the  deadly 
brand  of  heresy  lies  upon  the  whole  of  it.  Excepting  Charles 
Carroll,  of  Carrollton.  and  a  baker's  dozen  besides,  the  whole 
outfit  from  Washington,  the  Episcopalian,  to  Jerlerson  and 
Thomas  Paine,  the  Deists,  were  rank  heretics,  deserving  to 
be  burnt. 

What  sort  of  intelligence  would  a  good  Catholic  have,  if  he 
should  obey  the  rules  which  the  Pope  says  are  so  mildly 
framed  \ 

What  sort  of  knowledge  does  any  man  have,  when  he  is  for- 
bidden to  read  on  both  sides  of  the  case 

What  better  scheme  could  be  devised  for  putting  power  into 
the  hands  of  the  priest-  \ 

How  could  a  good  Catholic  ever  lie  anything,  mentally,  but 
a  child,  if  he  is  denied  the  privilege  of  reading,  thinking, 
comparing  and  judging? 

But  the  rules,  which  Pope  Leo  XIII.  so  mildly  framed,  do 
not  stop  here.  They  forbid  the  good  Catholic  to  read  any  book 
on  religion,  except  those  written  by  Catholics.  They  forbid 
Catholics  to  read  any  edition  of  the  Bible,  except  the  Catholic 
edition.  Books  which  criticize  the  Pope,  cardinals,  priests, 
church  doctrines  and  usages,  are  forbidden.    The  Pope  does 


182  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


not  wish  that  his  people  shall  be  told  a  great  many  things 
which  they  ought  to  know.  He  wants  them  to  know  nothing 
beyond  what  the  priests  see  fit  to  tell  them. 

No  good  Catholic  must  read  any  book,  or  other  publication, 
which  treats  of  religious  subjects,  without  submitting  said  book 
or  publication,  to  the  judgment  of  the  priests. 

Such  rules  as  these  sound  strangey  out  of  place  in  this  age 
of  progress  and  research. 

If  a  creed  is  sound,  why  should  it  fear  investigation? 

Conscious  error  should  not  possibly  show  more  guilty  timid- 
ity in  screening  itself  from  honest  inquiry  than  the  Catholic 
Church  displays  in  these  rules  which  command  good  Catholics 
to  read  no  books  excepting  those  which  have  been  inspected, 
tagged  and  branded  by  the  Pope. 

Of  all  the  slavery  in  this  world,  the  most  degrading  is  mental 
and  spiritual  slavery;  and  we  look  upon  the  huge  growth  of 
the  Catholic  Church  in  political  power  as  an  ominous  fact, 
because  the  natural  tendency  of  its  creed  is  to  make  the  people 
superstitious,  intolerant  and  priest-ridden. 

But  while  our  politicians  continue  to  be  cowards,  and  our 
Protestant  ministers  continue  to  be  silent,  Catholic  diplomacy 
will  march  onward' triumphantly,  until  the  day  will  come  when 
Protestantism  will  have  to  fight  for  dear  life  in  a  land  which 
its  blind  devotees  believe  is  dedicated  forever  to  free  speech, 
free  thought  and  free  worship. 

The  Jesuit's  Oath. 

"I,  A.  B.,  now  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  the  Blessed  Michael  the  Archangel,  the  Blessed 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  the  Holy  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul  and  the  saints  and  Sacred  Hosts  of  Heaven,  and  to  you, 
my  Ghostly  father,  I  do  declare  from  my  heart,  without  mental 
reservation,  that  the  Pope  is  Christ's  Vicar  General  and  is  the 
true  and  only  Head  of  the  Universal  Church  throughout  the 
earth,  and  that  by  virtue  of  the  Keys  of  binding  and  loosing 
given  to  His  Holiness  by  Jesus  Christ,  He  hath  power  to  depose 
Heretical  Kings,  Princes,  States,  Commonwealths  and  Govern- 
ments, all  being  illegal  without  his  sacred  confirmation,  and 
that  they  may  safely  be  destroyed.  Therefore,  to  the  utmost 
of  my  power,  I  will  defend  this  doctrine  and  His  Holiness's 
rights  and  customs  against  the  now  pretended  Authority  and 
Church  in  England  and  all  Adherents  in  regard  that  they  be 
Usurped  and  Heretical,  opposing  the  Sacred  Mother  Church 
of  Rome. 

"I  do  renounce  and  disown  any  Allegiance  as  due  to  any 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


183 


heretical  King.  Prince  or  State,  named  Protestant,  or  obedience 
to  any  of  their  inferior  Magistrates  or  officers. 

"I  do  further  declare  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
of  the  Calvinists,  Huguenots  and  other  Protestants,  to  be 
damnable,  and  those  to  be  damned  who  will  not  forsake  the 
same.  I  do  further  declare  that  I  will  help,  assist  and  advise 
all  or  any  of  His  Holiness's  agents,  in  any  place  wherever  I 
shall  be ;  and  to  do  my  utmost  to  extirpate  the  heretical  Prot- 
estant doctrine,  and  to  destroy  all  their  pretended  power,  regal 
or  otherwise.  I  do  further  promise  and  declare,  that  notwith- 
standing I  am  dispensed  with  to  assume  any  religion  heretical 
for  the  propagation  of  the  Mother  Church's  interest,  to  keep 
secret  and  private  all  her  agents'  counsels  as  they  entrust  me, 
and  not  to  divulge,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  word,  writing  or 
circumstance  whatsoever,  but  to  execute  all  which  shall  be 
-protected,  given  in  charge  or  discovered  unto  me,  by  you,  my 
Ghostly  Father,  or  by  ony  one  of  this  convent." 

"All  of  which  I,  A.  B.,  do  swear  by  the  Blessed  Trinity,  and 
Blessed  Sacrament  which  I  am  about  to  receive,  to  perform, 
on  my  part  to  keep  inviolably ;  and  to  call  on  all  the  Heavenly 
and  Glorious  Host  of  Heaven  to  witness  my  real  intentions  to 
keep  this,  my  oath.  In  testimony  whereof,  I  take  this  most 
Holy  and  Blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  and  witness  the 
same  further  with  my  hand  and  seal,  in  the  face  of  the  holy 
convent." 


The  Oddities  of  the  Great 


Is  it  a  fact  that  men  of  genius  are  more  apt  to  be  eccentric 
than  average  mortals  who  are  not  so  gifted?  Or  is  it  that 
nobody  cares  to  notice  the  peculiarities  of  the  obscure,  while  a 
hero-worshipping  world  fastens  greedy  eyes  upon  the  smallest 
detail  which  illustrates  the  manner  of  man  that  a  genius  hap- 
pens to  be? 

The  grouchy  old  Thomas  Carlyle  declared,  most  unreason- 
ably, that  Harriet  Martinau's  description  of  Daniel  Webster's 
manner  of  lounging  before  the  fire-place  with  his  hands  in  his 
pockets  was  worth  more  than  all  the  books  which  that  indus- 
trious blue-stocking  had  written  on  history,  biography,  politi- 
cal economy  and  what-not. 

The  surly  sneer  is  undeserved,  of  course,  but  it  illustrates 
the  human  appetite  for  details  about  great  men.  Carlyle  put 
upon  paper  his  own  expressions  of  Webster,  after  having  been 
in  "the  great  expounder's"  company,  and  a  most  masterly  por- 
traiture it  is, — "Steam  engine  in  breeches,"  and  so  forth. 

If  you  thought  it  worth  j^our  while  to  make  a  study  of  the 
comparatively  unimportant  individual  who  owns  the  adjoining 
farm,  or  keeps  the  fruit  store,  or  who  presides  over  the  Justice's 
Court,  or  who  represents  the  railroad  at  the  ticket-window,  or 
who  assigns  your  room  at  the  hotel,  or  who  takes  your  fare  on 
the  cars,  your  would  probably  find  him  just  as  full  of  a  sense 
of  individuality  as  any  of  the  Great;  and  his  daily  life,  his 
home  traits,  habits,  his  little  personal  peculiarities  are  just  as 
marked  as  were  those  of  the  more  conspicuous  mortals  who 
possessed  genius. 

Nevertheless,  we  are  not  going  to  pester  ourselves  to  gather 
facts  concerning  the  queerness,  the  eccentricity,  the  small 
meanness,  the  odd  freaks  of  intellect  which  characterize  the 
anonymous  Toms,  Dicks  and  Harrys :  what  we  do  want  to  know 
is  the  whole  story,  every  detail,  concerning  the  lofty  men  who 
dominate  our  hero-worshipping  souls. 

Did  Jones,  who  owns  the  adjoining  farm,  cut  a  large  hole 
in  the  door  for  the  use  of  the  cat,  and  a  small  one  for  the 
kitten?  We  don't  know,  and  what's  more,  we  don't  care.  But 
if  Sir  Isaac  Newton  does  a  thing  like  that, — behold  the  bug 
is  amber  ! — literature  will  tell  the  tale  to  the  remotest  posterit}^ 

Suppose  a  miscellaneous  city  dude  hires  a  horse  and  buggy, 
takes  his  gum-chewing  Mary  Lou  to  ride,  and  is  confronted 
with  an  emergency  which  requires  that  he  unharness  the  horse, 
— and  he  doesn't  know  how.  The  fact  does  not  even  attract 
the  attention  of  the  rural  correspondent  of  the  country  paper, 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


185 


as  does  the  largest  turnip,  the  earliest  watermelon,  and  the 
goings  and  comings  of  the  local  John  Henry's  and  Susan  Anns. 

But  how  different  it  is  with  Coleridge  and  Wadsworth ! 
Those  mighty  monarchs  of  the  realms  of  rhyme  come  driving 
home,  find  the  hired  man  absent  from  the  post  of  duty,  and 
fatuously*  undertake  to  strip  the  gear  off,  all  by  themselves. 
The  poets  progress  famously  until  they  try  to  take  the  collar 
off.  In  those  days  the  collar  did  not  buckle  and  unbuckle  as 
now.  It  was  a  continuous  ring  of  leather.  The  two  poets  could 
not  get  it  over  the  horse's  head.  In  vain  they  pulled  and 
pushed.  No  go.  They  then  fell  back  to  get  a  good  view  of 
the  horse.  Was  he  sick?  Had  his  head  swollen  after  the  collar 
was  put  on?  Manifestly  something  unusual  had  happened. 
It  was  the  same  collar,  the  same  horse;  yet  the  collar  which 
had  gone  over  the  horse's  head  was  too  small  to  come  off. 

The  two  poets  gravely  and  anxiously  discussed  the  matter, 
and  made  another  earnest  effort  to  pull  the  collar  off.  Nothing- 
doing.  Happily  the  servant-girl  caught  sight  of  the  puzzled 
philosophers,  and  went  to  the  rescue.  Turning  the  big  end  of 
the  collar  upward,  she  passed  it  over  the  horse's  head, — and 
sailed  off  triumphantly,  full  of  pride  and  the  exultant  sense 
of  superiority.  In  her  eyes,  the  men  who  didn't  have  sense 
enough  to  unharness  a  horse  were  mighty  sorry  creatures,  even 
though  they  had  written  "The  Ancient  Mariner"  and  the 
"Excursion." 

The  visitor  who  found  Shelley  climbing  a  picket  fence,  every 
time  he  left  or  entered  the  yard  of  the  Italian  villa  he  had 
rented — the  owner  having  left  the  gate  locked — was  vastly 
amused  at  the  poet's  simplicity.  "Why  don't  you  break  the 
lock,  and  use  the  gateway?"  asked  the  sagacious  visitor. 

"Bless  my  soul,  I  never  thought  of  that!"  said  Shelley,  im- 
mensely relieved  at  the  idea  of  not  having  to  climb  that  picket 
fence  again. 

Can  you  doubt  that  the  visitor  went  away  pluming  himself 
upon  his  advantage  over  the  radiant  intellect  of  that  whose 
marvelous  fruitage  are  the  "Adonais,"  the  "Cloud,"  and  the 
"Ode  to  the  Nightingale?" 

If  Shakespeare  had  any  peculiarities,  we  don't  know  it:  he 
is  so  rounded-out,  symmetrical,  and  perfectly  healthy  as  to  be 
almost  impersonal.  So  I  would  speak  of  Goethe,  were  it  not 
for  his  cold  brutalities  to  the  women  whom  he  fascinated. 

But,  with  these  two  exceptions,  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
name  a  single  literary  genius  whose  eccentricities  were  not 
conspicuous.  You  will  dispute  this,  and  remind  me  that  Sir 
Walter  Scott's  was  a  heart  of  gold,  his  mind  eminently  sane 
and  free  of  the  morbid.  But  you  would  be  wrong — terribly 
wrong.    Deep  down  in  the  soul  of  Sir  Walter  there  was  that 


186  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


unmanliness  which  crouches  and  cringes.  It  is  a  hard  thing  to 
say  of  him  who  wrote  the  "Young  Lochinvar,"  "Marmion," 
and  the  battle  song  in  "The  Lady  of  the  Lake,"  but  it  is  a 
true  saying. 

Had  Sir  Walter  treasured,  as  a  sacred  heir-loom,  some  cup 
which  had  touched  the  lips  of  Wallace,  or  even  of  Kobert 
Bruce,  or  of  that  magnificent  brute,  Richard  the  Lion-hearted, 
we  could  understand  him,  and  respect  him  for  it ;  but  when  we 
see  him  catch  up  and  put  in  his  pocket,  to  carry  home  and  keep 
as  a  holy  relic,  a  glass  whose  wine  had  been  guzzled  by  George 
the  Fourth,  that  most  putrid  of  all  putrid  kings,  a  gust  of  scorn 
and  contempt  sweeps  over  us.  Why?  We  see  the  crouching 
of  the  courtier  to  the  office  of  King.  We  see  that,  after  all, 
Sir  Walter's  was  the  soul  of  the  lackey.  The  cringing  to  power 
and  wealth  and  militarism  saturates  all  his  books.  His  neck 
is  ever  bent  to  the  yoke,  in  Church  and  State.  A  Tory  to  the 
very  bottom  of  his  heart,  he  hates  a  rebel  as  constituted  author- 
ity always  does.  Upon  the  Dissenter,  in  religion  and  in  politics, 
he  empties  the  phials  of  his  uttermost  derision, — doing  his  level 
best  to  make  him  ludicrous  and  despicable.  "Submit  yourselves 
to  those  in  power;  bend  your  necks  to  Kings  and  Popes; 
believe  that  every  wrong  is  right  if  you  found  it  established 
when  you  came  into  the  world," — that  is  the  message  of  Sir 
Walter's  books,  and  it  has  done  enormous  harm. 

The  oddities  of  Carlyle  would  of  themselves  fill  up  a  lengthy 
chapter.  The  crowing  rooster  bothered  him  grievously;  the 
lowing  cow  was  not  his  favorite;  and  the  dog  that  sat  in  one 
place  and  barked  all  night  found  no  favor  in  his  sight;  and 
the  piano  banger  next  door  sometimes  got  notes  that  were  not 
on  her  scale.  Poor  old  philosopher,  telling  all  mankind  how 
to  live  and  be  good  and  happy,  and  raving  like  a  madman 
most  of  the  time  himself.  Discovering  after  marriage  that  he 
had  no  business  marrying,  he  humbly  went  to  work  to  make 
both  himself  and  the  unfortunate  wife  wretched.  Caught  in 
a  similar  predicament,  John  Ruskin  gave  his  wife  away, — to 
the  painter  Millias,  who  made  her,  and  a  fine  lot  of  children, 
idealy  happy.  Apparently,  no  other  man  sought  to  win  Mrs. 
Carlyle,  and  she  was  left  to  the  life  which  caused  her  to  say, 
in  the  anguish  of  her  hungry,  tortured  soul,  "I  feel  as  if  I  were 
the  keeper  of  a  private  mad-house." 

Lamartine  says,  "Genius  bears  within  itself  a  principle  of 
destruction,  of  death,  of  madness." 

This  is  unquestionably  true — a  very  terrible  fact.  Such  men 
as  Byron,  Coleridge,  Shelley,  Alfieri,  Dante,  Swift,  Tennyson, 
Poe,  Landor,  are  assuredly  non-sane,  if  judged  by  ordinary 
standards.  There  is  an  unbalance  of  faculties,  a  lack  of  mental 
symmetry  and  poise. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


187 


What  a  motley  procession  it  is — that  of  the  great  men  of 
English  literature !  There  is  burly,  surly,  overbearing  Doctor 
Johnson,  with  his  drawing-room  amenities, — such  as  "I  per- 
ceive, Sir,  that  you  are  a  vile  Whig  !" — and  his  catching  hold 
of  the  hands  of  one  of  the  company  to  prevent  gesticulation 
during  the  conversation ;  and  his  stopping  in  the  street  to  pick 
up  orange  peel,  for  some  mysterious,  undiscoverable  purpose, 
and  touching  the  lamp-posts  regularly,  as  he  walked  along: 
and  swallowing  without  a  wink  the  absurd  story  about  the 
Cocklane  Ghost;  and  compiling  a  Dictionary  in  which  he 
scornfully  defies  a  pension  as  a  bribe  taken  by  a  traitor  for  the 
betrayal  of  his  country,  and  then  accepting  a  royal  pension 
for  himself. 

There  *is  poor  Chatterton  starving  in  his  garret,  and  Henry 
Fielding  reeling  toward  home,  after  midnight,  drunk  as  a 
lord.  There  is  Dr.  Smollet,  poor  as  a  church  mouse,  writing 
masterpieces  of  realistic  fiction  that  have  delighted  millions 
and  made  fortunes  for  publishers  and  book-dealers.  There  is 
the  satanic  figure  of  Dean  Swift,  hating  the  whole  human  race, 
venting  his  impotent  rage  in  torrents  of  bitter  obscenities, — 
incidentally  breaking  the  hearts  of  the  only  two  fellow-beings 
that  ever  loved  him. 

There  is  Pope,  the  little  cripple,  who  is  so  bright  and  so 
ready  to  sting;  who  has  to  be  sewed  up  in  a  sack  every  morning, 
and  put  to  bed  like  a  child  at  night  ;  and  who  threatens  to 
spite  the  unappreciative  age  in  which  he  lives  by  writing  no 
more  poetry. 

There  is  Oliver  Goldsmith,  the  sweetest  spirit  that  ever 
touched  the  chords  of  human  feeling;  and  there  is  Sheridan 
who,  when  arrested  one  night  for  maudlin  drunkenness,  and 
asked  his  name,  answered,  thickly,  "Wilberforce" — that  being 
the  eminently  respectable  name  of  England's  pioneer  Pro- 
hibitionist. 

Yes,  and  here  is  her  ladyship,  Mary  Worthy  Montague, 
high-born  dame,  of  brilliant  wit,  known  as  the  introducer  into 
Europe  of  the  extremely  dubious  vaccination  practice;  and 
whose  high-breeding  once  manifested  itself  in  a  rather  famous 
repartee.  Some  daring  person  having  ventured  to  remark  to 
the  Lady  Mary  that  her  hands  were  dirty,  that  courageous 
patrician  retorted,  daintily,  "You  ought  to  see  my  feet!" 

And  there  is  Southey,  tearing  along  the  road  of  that  haggard 
existence  of  his,  composing  monumental  epics  which  nobody 
reads,  and  throwing  off  a  few  lyrics  and  one  biography  which 
are  classics  and  immortal. 

And  let  us  sigh  for  Keats,  the  sensitive,  and  wish,  for  his 
sake  that  he  had  learned  to  pay  as  little  attention  to  adverse 
criticism,  as  we  roast-proof  moderns  do.    Who  cares  a  rap 


188  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

what  the  reviewers  say,  nowadays?  Did  he  really  creep  to 
bed,  turn  his  face  to  the  wall,  and  grieve  himself  to  death 
because  an  immensely  inferior  man  made  fun  of  his  poems'? 
I  hope  not.  His  work  has  so  wondrous  a  quality  that  it  is 
painful  to  believe  that  he  was  so  structurally  weak.  How  much 
finer  was  Byron,  when  the  same  Quarterly  Review  ridiculed 
his  ridiculous  early  poems.  Instead  of  going  to  bed,  my  Lord 
Byron  gulps  down  a  few  bumpers  of  wine,  seizes  his  gray 
goose  quill,  and  goes  after  the  whole  tribe  of  English  Bards 
and  Scotch  Reviewers,  putting  some  of  them  in  bed.  In  fact, 
Byron  hadn't  written  a  line  that  was  worth  while,  until  then. 
The  lash  of  the  reviewer  roused  him. 

Much  of  what  the  poets  write  is  unintelligible.  Perhaps 
they  themselves  understood  it,  but  that  is  doubtful.  Don't 
you  get  the  idea  that  Goethe  lost  his  way  in  the  latter  part  of 
Faust?  Does  Coleridge  always  make  his  meaning  know  able? 
Are  you  quite  sure  that  Poe  and  Browning  knew  what  they 
were  trying  to  say,  all  the  time? 

We  live  in  a  land  where  Walt  Whitman  has  many  warm 
admirers.  Let  me  close  by  quoting  a  few  lines  from  the  in- 
spired Walt.  The  devotees  will  doubtless  unravel  the  poet's 
meaning,  but  a  lunacy  commission  would  be  justified  in  hesi- 
tating a  long  while  before  deciding  that  such  writing  is  not 
evidence  of  mental  aberration: 

"Divine  am  I  inside  and  out,  and  I  make  holy  whatever  I  touch 

or  am  touched  from; 
The  scent  of  these  armpits,  aroma  finer  than  prayer; 
This  head  more  than  churches,  bibles  and  all  creeds. 
If  I  worship  one  thing  more  than  another,  it  shall  be  the  spread 

of  my  own  body  or  any  part  of  it." 


Pages  from  a  Lost  Book. 


Once  upon  a  time  I  sat  me  down  to  write  a  book— the  story 
of  a  great  people.  The  still  watches  of  many  a  night  found 
my  lamp  burning  and  my  pen  flying.  With  the  statesmen,  the 
orators,  the  heroes  of  the  past.  I  lived.  With  the  troubadour 
I  vagabondized  from  castle  to  castle,  with  the  Knight  I  rode 
down  the  lists,  with  the  crusader  went  to  the  Holy  Land,  with 
the  soldier  marched  to  the  wars.  I  saw  the  white  plume  of 
Xavarre  lead  the  charging  line  at  Ivry;  heard  the  fierce  war- 
song  of  the  Midi  as  the  dark  men  of  Marseilles  tramped  along 
the  dusty  roads  to  Paris ;  was  there  when  Mirabeau  thundered 
his  defiance  of  the  King's  messenger;  saw  Camille  when  he 
jumped  upon  the  table  in  the  garden  of  the  Palais  Eoyal  and 
fired  the  crowd  into  stripping  the  leaves  off  the  trees  to  pin  on 
their  coats  as  cockades  of  revolt;  was  in  the  thick  of  it  when 
the  Bastille  was  stormed:  saw  poor  Louis  the  Sixteenth  be- 
headed; and  heard  the  very  tone  in  which  the  leonine  Danton 
roared.  "'The  confederated  Kings  of  Europe  threaten  us.  Yery 
well :  we  throw  at  their  feet,  as  gage  of  battle,  the  head  of  a 
King!" 

Yes.  for  months  I  lived  with  these  historic  people,  knowing 
them  more  intimately  than  I  knew  my  next  door  neighbor. 
At  length  the  big  task  was  finished,  and  the  manuscript  went 
to  the  publisher. 

Quite  naturally,  a  conservative  publisher  found  many  pages 
of  my  "copy*'  too  radical.  It  was  many  years  ago.  remember. 
Eadicalism  is  the  fashion  now.  It  was  different  when  "The 
Story  of  France"  went  to  press.  Hundreds  of  its  manuscript 
pages  were  thrown  away.  Indeed,  the  first  volume  was  con- 
siderably mangled.  The  chapter  on  the  Reformation  was  toned 
down  until  it  wasn't  mine  at  all.  Perhaps  it  was  better  so. 
Perhaps  not. 

In  the  second  volume.  I  was  allowed  a  freer  hand,  but  even 
there  the  "Reader"  of  the  publishers  landed  on  me  heavily. 
For  instance.  I  wanted  to  contrast  the  Let-it-alone  citizen,  who 
adapts  himself  to  every  wrongful  condition,  with  the  reformer 
who  rebels.  The  "Reader"  rejected  the  pages.  See  what  is 
printed  within  the  parenthesis,  in  the  quotation  which  follows. 
Those  italicised  words  appear  in  red  ink  upon  the  rejected 
Ms.,  written  there  by  the  publisher's  "Reader."  Xote  that  I 
was  asked  to  omit  the  pages,  and  that  the  printer  was  per- 
emptorily instructed  to  omit  them !  As  the  French  Revolution 
was  devouring  its  own  children,  the  passages  on  the  cruel  fate 


190  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


of  the  reformer  seemed  to  me  eminently  appropriate.  The 
"Reader"  didn't  think  so, — hence  red  ink  veto,  enclosed  below 
in  the  brackets. 

[These  pages,  aren't  they  best  omitted?  ■  They  say  what  is 
true,  and  say  it  finely,  but  are  they  not  best  omitted  in  a  booh 
on  the  French  Revolution?  To  the  printer:  Omit  these 
pages.'] 

"These  pages"  were  as  follows: 

Let  it  alone !  It  is  all  well  enough  as  it  is.  Perfection  you 
must  not  hope  for:  bear  the  ills  you  see  around  you,  lest  you 
fly  to  others  which  are  worse !  All  I  possess  is  invested  in 
the  system  of  Today !  My  salary  flows  from  it ;  my  dignity  is 
derived  from  it;  my  power  depends  upon  it.  In  self-defence 
I  must  fight  you  to  the  death  if  you  touch  the  system  which 
deals  gently  with  me ! 

In  this  language,  substantially,  the  favorites  of  Social, 
Political,  and  Religious  systems  admonish  the  Rebel  who  seeks 
to  disturb  the  repose  of  Zion.  Woe  unto  the  reformer !  His 
Crown  is  heavy,  for  it  is  of  thorns.  As  he  staggers  beneath 
his  Cross,  there  are  none  to  cheer  his  fainting  Soul.  His 
enemies  raise  the  yell  of  brutal  triumph,  his  friends  are  afar 
off  and  silent.  The  unprivileged  in  whose  behalf  he  condemns 
himself  to  the  Crucifixion,  can  be  counted  among  those  who 
shout  "Give  us  Barabbas."  Not  all  of  those  who  smite  him  are 
of  the  Privileged  whom  he  has  antagonized.  Not  all  of  those 
who  spit  upon  him  are  of  those  whose  tyranny  he  denounced. 
The  spear  that  pierces  deepest  is  thrust  into  his  quivering 
flesh  by  those  whose  wrongs  had  moved  him  to  pity  and  to 
protect. 

Ever  and  ever,  the  heart  of  the  reformer  breaks  because  of 
the  ingratitude  of  the  people  he  sought  to  save.  Ever  and 
ever  the  prayer  of  the  reformer  must  be,  "Father  forgive  them, 
thev  know  not  what  they  do."  Woe  to  the  reformer — if  he 
looks  for  any  reward  among  men  !  If  he  finds  not  his  strength, 
his  consolation  in  his  own  conscience,  he  is  the  wretchedest 
creature  that  lives.  Better  had  he  never  been  born.  Better 
had  he  never  laid  his  hands  upon  the  sword.  He  will  perish 
by  it — as  surely  as  he  is  earnest,  unselfish  and  undaunted. 
Does  the  liberated  slave  celebrate  Garrison,  Phillips  and  John 
Brown?  Not  at  all.  The  Negro's  Saint  is  Lincoln,  the  poli- 
tician, who  deprecated  agitation,  held  himself  aloof  from  the 
Abolitionists,  and  only  put  his  sickle  with  the  harvest  when  it 
was  dead-ripe,  and  could  be  garnered  for  the  purposes  of 
Practical  Politics. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  King  and  his  nobles  had 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


191 


brought  France  to  bankruptcy  by  their  extravagance;  that  a 
deficit  existed  which  steadily  grew  larger;  and  that  it  was  for 
the  purpose  of  asking  the  nation  for  financial  relief  that  the 
King  summoned  the  States-General,  and  thus  started  the  Rev- 
olution.  I  wrote  several  pages  upon  this  subject,  but  they 
were  thrown  out.  See  the  curt  orders  to  printers,  in  the  paren- 
thesis below.   On  the  Ms.  the  words  are  in  red  ink. 

( Omit  these  pages.) 

"These  pages''  read : 

The  Deficit,  the  Deficit ! — how  it  did  intimidate  the  strongest 
nerves !  How  it  did  knock  off  their  unstable  feet  one  minister 
after  another !  How  confidently  each,  in  turn,  went  up  against 
it,  and  how  swift  was  collapse,  and  flight  from  the  field. 

Where  now  was  this  Deficit,  before  whose  terrors  no  royal 
minister  had  been  able  to  stand?  The  Revolution  had  soothed 
it  into  submission  and  docility.  The  lion  now  "roared  you 
as  gently  as  any  sucking  dove." 

What  was  the  secret  of  the  change?  Expansion  of  the  cur- 
rency ;  only  this,  and.  nothing  more. 

The  Assignat  had  gone  abroad  through  the  land,  and  what- 
ever it  touched  turned  to  gold.  Land  was  bought,  houses  built, 
farms  put  into  cultivation,  labor  set  to  work: — with  paper 
money.  Trade  was  busy  in  all  her  marts;  manufactures 
thrived  to  the  music  of  its  myriad  whirling  wheels;  agricul- 
ture smiled  in  all  her  fields.  Who  heard  the  cry  of  Famine  in 
1790  and  1791?  No  squalid  mob  of  hungry  wretches  pleaded 
for  bread.  What  had  become  of  the  ever-present  rioters  of 
1788  and  1789  ?  They  were  at  work.  The  unemployed  no 
longer  hung  upon  the  streets.  Money  made  work,  and  work 
made  peace.  The  baker's  shop  was  pillaged  no  more !  The 
baker's  head  rested  calmly  on  his  shoulders — not  hideously 
on  the  end  of  a  pike.  The  record  of  paper  money  is  the  same, 
always.  It  quickens  production,  inspires  energy,  nerves  enter- 
prise, booms  values,  distributes  and  increases  wealth.  This  is 
invariably  so.  No  historian  denies  it.  Under  John  Law  it  did 
so,  in  the  time  of  the  Regent  Orleans ;  under  Pitt  it  did  so,  in 
England,  during  the  Napoleonic  wars:  in  America  it  did  so, 
under  Lincoln  and  in  the  years  following  the  Civil  War.  The 
same  tree  bore  the  same  fruit  for  the  French  Revolution.  Not 
until  the  foes  of  paper  money  insidiously  assailed  it.  did  the 
same  system  bear  bitter  fruit.  The  foreign  governments  who 
counterfeited  the  Assignats  by  the  million,  and  flooded  France 
with  them ;  the  hoarders  of  gold  who  legislated  against  them ; 
the  enemies  of  paper  money  who  wished  to  kill  it  by  creating 
an  excess  of  it  ;  the  wrecker  of  the  Commercial  seas  who  longs 
for  the  storm  of  Contraction,  so  that  helpless  argosies  may  be 


192 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


driven  in  ruin  to  the  reefs  where  he  can  plunder  them : — these 
are  the  influences  which  have  always  combined  to  destroy  paper 
money,  as  soon  as  it  has  done  its  work  of  saving  the  State. 
Paper  money  offered  to  save  the  Old  Regime  from  the  roaring 
Deficit,  but  the  Privileged  foolishly  scorned  the  offer.  The 
Revolution  caught  up  the  rejected  slab,  and  made  it  the  Corner 
stone  of  the  New  Order. 

In  1776  a  bank  called  the  Caisse  d'  Escompte  was  established 
in  Paris  with  a  capital  of  about  $1,500,000.  Until  1782,  this 
bank  prospered.  It  had  issued  notes,  payable  on  demand,  to 
the  amount  of  $7,500,000. 

In  that  year,  the  pressure  of  the  war  with  England,  forced 
the  government  to  borrow  a  million  dollars  from  the  bank. 

This  depletion  of  its  capital  caused  the  bank  to  suspend 
specie  payments.  By  royal  decree,  Sept.  27,  1783,  the  notes  of 
the  bank  were  made  legal  tender. 

The  refusal  of  the  nobles  to  accept  this  paper  money  brought 
on  the  crisis  with  the  Royal  Treasury. 

No  historian  of  the  French  Revolution  appears  to  have  been 
struck  with  this  fact.  By  their  scornful  defiance  of  the  royal 
decree,  by  their  selfish  insistance  upon  specie  payments,  these 
pampered  parasites  of  the  Old  Regime  drove  the  King  to 
those  desperate  expedients  which  culminated  in  the  summon- 
ing of  the  States-General! 

In  June,  1787,  the  outstanding  notes  of  the  bank  had  reached 
$20,000,000.  Calonne,  who  was  at  this  time  running  his  wild 
career  of  lavish  expenditure,  compelled  the  bank  to  advance 
him  $25,000,000.  This  forced  another  suspension  of  the  specie 
payments, — which  before  this  had  been  resumed.  In  1789,  the 
tottering  bank  was  given  a  final  push  by  Nacker.  He  borrowed 
from  it  $18,000.000 ! 

This  ruined  it,  though  it  did  not  cease  to  exist  (in  a  dying 
condition)  till  the  Convention  abolished  it  in  1793. 

We  find  from  a  note  in  the  Diary  of  Gouverneur  Morris  that 
the  only  currency  circulating  in  Paris  in  1790  was  the  paper 
money  of  this  bank.    Specie  had  disappeared. 

When  the  National  Assembly  began  to  issue  paper  money  in 
the  name  of  the  Nation,  the  bank  notes  of  course  fell  into 
disuse.  With  the  State  notes,  lands,  at  least,  could  be  bought; 
with  the  bank  notes,  nothing. 

One  more  illustration,  and  I'm  done.  The  lines  in  the  first 
parenthesis  which  follows  were  written  by  me.  Those  in  the 
second  parenthesis  were  written  by  the  "Reader," — in  very  red 
ink.    Notice  how  sarcastic  the  poor  author  had  become. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


193 


(  This  page  and  the  two  which  follow,  are  offered  with  that 
timidity  which  is  born  of  anticipated  discomfiture.  | 

( Omit — since  this  matter  belongs  to  a  theory  of  finance 
which  rather  too  deeply  colors  the  preceding  pages.  I 

The  "omit"  killed  the  following  paragraphs: 

In  saying  that  the  issue  of  paper-money  brought  prosperity 
to  France.  Ave.  of  course,  wish  to  be  understood  as  meaning 
that  the  prosperity  was  merely  fictitious.  In  common  with 
other  historians,  Ave  feel  bound  to  caution  the  reader  to  put 
no  faith  in  the  facts.  While  it  is  true  that  in  1700-1.  the  issue 
of  treasury  notes  quickened  the  step  of  industry,  stimulating 
its  strength  in  every  field  of  production,  the  results  were  not 
substantial.  Ships  stood  out  to  sea.  but  they  were  phantom 
ships: — golden  argosies  might  seem  to  ride  the  waves,  but  thev 
bore  only  the  wealth  of  dreams.  Barns  were  full  of  grain, 
markets  bustled  with  activities,  men  hurried  here  and  there  to 
tasks  which  seemed  to  be  real,  which  seemed  to  be  useful. — but 
the  harvests  of  results  were  barren  idealities:  the  wheat  was 
not  actual  wheat,  the  men  of  the  market  were  illusory  men: 
he  who  had  on  good  clothes  was  only  apparently  clad:  money 
in  the  pocket  was  a  delusion  and  a  snare:  food  in  the  stomach 
was  there  by  necromancy:  and  it  appeased  the  hunger  of  man. 
wife,  and  child  only  by  force  of  patriotic  imagination.  Paper- 
money  is  a  tricky  conjurer  whose  wiles  are  known  well  in  the 
Academy,  in  the  Senate,  in  the  back-parlors  of  the  lords  of 
finance.  Full  of  guile,  it  will  deceive  unless  watched.  It 
spreads  these  appearances  of  prosperity  to  dupe  the  unwary. 
To  prevent  the  world's  being  permanently  misled  on  so  grave 
a  matter,  government-  which  issue  paper-money  in  times  of 
distress,  destroy  it  when  peace  returns :  the  effects  of  the  cur- 
rency depart  with  the  currency  itself,  and  the  deluded  people 
then  discover  that  the  o-ood  results  of  paper-money  are  evan- 
escent. Had  the  currency  not  been  suppressed,  the  apparent 
prosperity  might  have  endured,  and  thus  the  world,  chained 
to  a  grievous  error  in  reference  to  government  money,  might 
have  escaped  the  crafty  tutelage  of  the  money-changer  whose 
presence  in  the  Temple  gave  such  offence  to  our  Lord  and 
Savior  Jesus  Christ. 

Sir  Archibald  Alison  complained  bitterly  of  the  Tories  of 
Fmgland.  that  his  services  as  historian  had  not  been  adequately 
rewarded.  He  had  found  the  Tory  interest  sadly  in  want  of  a 
good  history,  and  he  had  written  one  for  it:  hence  he  claimed 
payment  at  the  Tory  hands.  If  it  is  in  this  spirit  that  histories 
are  written.  God  speed  the  day  when  some  mighty  man  of  the 
pen  will  do  justice  to  the  story  of  the  people. 


194  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Some  easily  discouraged  people  croak  "Reforms  cOme 
slowly!"    But  is  it  so? 

The  very  publishing  house  which  cast  out  the  radicalism  of 
Watson,  in  the  Nineties,  now  eagerly  welcomes  the  Manuscript 
of  the  boldest  Socialist.  From  sea  to  sea,  the  public  opinion 
which  the  reformers  have  created,  bends  the  politicians  as  the 
storm  bends  the  willows.  Instead  of  slow  progress,  reform 
sentiment  has  moved  like  a  tidal  wave,  and  its  power  is  felt 
all  the  way  from  back-woods  cabin  to  the  White  House. 


Tolstoy  and  the  Land 


The  London  Times  publishes  a  lengthy  article  which 
Tolstoy  has  written  on  the  land  question,  and  this  article  is 
reprinted  by  Mr.  Louis  Post  in  his  excellent  paper.  The 
Public. 

The  position  taken  by  the  Russian  philosopher  is  that  the 
land  must  be  restored  to  the  people,  that  every  child  born  into 
the  world  has  a  natural  right  to  a  portion  of  the  soil,  and  that 
all  political  reforms  will  be  vain  until  this  fundamental  reform 
is  brought  about. 

I  do  not  see  that  Tolstoy  has  added  one  cubit  to  the 
argument  already  built  up  by  those  who  have  gone  before. 
He  adds  some  homely  and  striking  illustrations,  he  mixes 
the  question  of  religion  with  it.  but  of  substantial  reason  or 
fact  he  makes  no  contribution  whatever. 

Is  it  true  that  the  real  grievance  of  the  masses  is  that  the 
land  has  been  taken  away  from  them  (  Will  no  reform  bring 
them  relief  until  the  land  has  been  given  back  to  them?  Will 
universal  happiness  be  the  result  of  putting  an  end  to  the 
private  ownership  of  land  ? 

These  are  grave  questions,  and  they  deserve  the  most  serious 
consideration.  As  a  guide  to  our  footsteps  the  past  must 
always  be.  to  some  extent,  our  light,  our  teacher.  Human 
nature  today  is  probably  the  same  that  it  always  was.  There 
is  nothing  new  under  the  sun.  and  the  problems  which  vexed 
the  brain  of  Tolstoy  doubtless  puzzled  the  minds  of  Moses 
and  Confucius. 

Ours  is  not  the  only  civilization  the  world  ever  saw.  We 
may  be  sure  that  all  the  vital  principles  of  government,  all  the 
problems  of  complex  society,  have  had  the  best  thought  of  the 
wisest  men  that  ever  lived  in  the  ages  that  are  gone. 

If  historical  teaching  is  worth  anything  at  all.  the  land 
question  may  be  considered  absolutely  settled.  No  civilization 
was  ever  able  to  develop  as  long  as  the  tribe  owned  everything 
in  common.  Xot  until  it  became  a  matter  of  self-interest  for 
some  individual  to  improve  the  land,  was  it  ever  improved. 
As  long  as  each  individual  felt  that  his  parcel  of  land  might 
go  out  of  his  possession  at  the  next  regular  division,  there  was 
no  incentive  to  improvement  and  there  was  no  improvement. 

The  waste  remained  a  waste,  the  hovel  remained  a  hovel. 
Xot  until  the  individual  became  assured  that  the  benefit  of  his 
labor  would  accrue  to  himself,  did  the  waste  become  a  farm  and 
the  hovel  a  house. 

8— Sketches 


196  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

If  the  history  of  the  world  shows  anything  at  all,  it  shows 
this. 

And  the  reason  why  this  is  so  is  that  human  nature  is  just 
human.  If  men  were  angels  it  would  be  different.  As  long  as 
men  are  nothing  more  than  men,  each  citizen  is  going  to  get 
what  belongs  to  him,  if  he  can. 

Now,  what  is  it  that  justly  belongs  to  each  citizen? 

It  is  his  labor  and  the  products  thereof. 

How  did  private  ownership  in  land  begin? 

Tolstoy  speaks  of  those  who  have  seized  upon  the  land  and 
who  keep  it  from  the  masses  of  the  people. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  right  of  each  citizen  to  hold  as  his 
own  a  certain  portion  of  the  soil,  began  with  the  laborer  who 
claimed  the  products  of  his  labor. 

While  a  score  of  tribesmen  were  fishing  or  hunting  or  drink- 
ing and  gambling,  one  tribesman  cleared  the  trees  off  a  piece 
of  wild  land,  converted  the  rough  soil  into  a  seed  bed,  fenced 
it  in  to  keep  off  the  cattle  and  came  to  love  that  which  his 
labor  had  created. 

Having  put  his  labor  into  the  land,  having  changed  it  from 
a  waste  into  a  farm,  it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
that  he  should  claim  it  as  his  own.  Why  shouldn't  he?  He 
had  made  it  a  farm. 

Was  it  just  that  the  twenty  idle  tribesmen  should  take  away 
from  the  one  industrious  tribesman,  that  which  his  labor  had 
created  ? 

If  it  was  not  just  for  the  idle  to  rob  the  industrious,  then 
we  must  leave  the  farm  to  the  man  whose  labor  made  it  a 
farm;  and  there  you  have  private  ownership  of  land. 

The  moment  the  industrious  tribesman  saw  that  the  tribe 
would  protect  him  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  products  of  his 
labor,  he  began  to  advance  toward  civilization.  He  built 
something  better  to  live  in  than  a  mud  hovel.  As  long  as  the 
regular  division  of  the  soil  was  in  practise,  he  had  no  home. 
How  could  he  have  one  ? 

The  home  is  the  sweetest  flower  of  individual  ownership., 
There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  home — a  home  to  love  and 
beautify  and  consecrate  to  the  holiness  of  family  life — where 
there  is  no  private  ownership. 

Tolstoy  and  every  other  opponent  of  private  ownership 
makes  the  point  that  nature  gives  no  support  to  the  system. 
That  is  true.  Nature  does  not  teach  the  principle  of  private 
ownership,  nor  does  nature  teach  the  doctrine  of  monogamy — 
the  one  wife. 

Nature  does  not  recognize  the  marital  relation  at  all.  If 
nature  teaches  anything  on  the  relation  of  the  sexes,  it  teaches 
polygamy.    The   marriage  relation,   as  we  know  it,   is  not 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


197 


founded  in  nature,  but  is  the  product  of  convention  and  is  a 
comparatively  modern  contrivance. 

In  other  word-,  it  is  a  man-made  institution. 

Does  Tolstoy  believe  in  it  \  If  he  does  I  as  must  be  assumed') 
he  admits  the  supreme  power  of  society  to  fix  the  laws  by 
which  it  shall  be  governed,  whether  those  laws  seem  to  be  laws 
of  nature  or  not. 

The  one  wife,  one  husband,  marital  relation,  justifies  itself 
by  its  results. 

We  judge  the  tree  by  the  fruits. 

It  is  far  from  being  a  radiant  success,  but  we've  got  it.  and 
we  propose  to  keep  it — lest  worse  things  happen. 

As  to  the  land  question,  the  situation  is  much  the  same. 
Society,  as  a  matter  of  -elf-preservation,  admitted  the  principle 
of  private  ownership  of  land.  Had  society  never  done  so.  the 
land  would  never  have  been  more  than  nature's  handiwork — 
the  limitless  range  for  cattle,  the  uncleared  wilderness,  the 
thirsty  plains  and  deserts  whose  parched  lips  would  never 
have  tasted  the  life-giving  water-  of  irrigation. 

Labor  made  the  land  worth  owning,  and  that  which  labor 
made,  labor  was  allowed  to  keep.    That  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

The  civilizations  that  have  died  were  not  killed  by  private 
ownership  of  the  soil. 

No :  a  thousand  times,  no ! 

The  civilizations  with  whose  wrecks  the  shores  of  time  are 
strewn,  owed  their  destruction  to  misgovernment.  Vicious 
men  made  vicious  laws,  and  vicious  rulers  enforced  them. 
Excessive  taxation  imposed  burdens  which  crushed  the  victims. 
Privileged  orders  exploited  non-privileged  masses.  The 
aristocratic  few  lived  riotously  at  the  expense  of  the 
democratic  many.  The  money  of  the  Nation  was  concentrated 
in  the  hands  of  the  dominant  class.  The  many  had  to  pay 
ungodly  prices  for  the  use  of  this  money.  Usury  is  a  vulture 
which  has  gorged  it-elf  upon  the  vitals  of  nations  since  the 
dawn  of  time. 

"Great  estates  were  the  ruin  of  Italy,"  says  the  historian: 
but  what  created  the  great  estates  \  Before  a  few  could  buy 
up  all  the  land,  there  must  have  been  some  great  cause  at 
work,  some  advantage  which  the  few  held  at  the  expense  of 
the  many.    What  was  that  advantage? 

Dig  down  to  that  and  you  will  then  have  the  true  cause  of 
the  ruin  of  Italy. 

Consult  the  books,  and  you  will  find  that  the  ruling  class  at 
Eome  had  concentrated  in  their  own  hands  all  the  tremendous 
powers  of  State.  They  fixed  the  taxes,  paid  little  and  spent 
all.  They  controlled  the  money,  and  the  noble  Brutus  was 
one  of  the  patriots  who  loaned  out  his  capital  at  IS  per  cent, 
interest ! 


198  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Give  to  any  ruling  class  the  power  to  levy  and  spend  the 
taxes,  give  that  class  the  legal  right  to  enrich  itself  at  the 
expense  of  the  others,  give  that  class  the  power  to  dictate  the 
price  at  which  the  masses  shall  have  the  use  of  money,  and  it 
is  good-bye — a  long  farewell — to  the  prosperity  of  that  people. 

It  is  infinitely  easier  to  enslave  a  people  through  the  misuse 
of  the  powers  of  government,  than  through  the  laws  of 
property. 

The  power  to  tax  is  the  power  to  confiscate.  Give  that  power 
to  one  class,  and  what  more  does  it  want?  The  only  limit  to 
the  extent  to  which  the  victims  can  be  robbed,  is  the  limit  of 
their  capacity  to  pay. 

Add  to  this  the  control  of  the  currency  system,  the  life-blood 
of  the  nation,  and  you  need  nothing  more. 

You  can  absolutely  prostrate  any  people  on  earth  by  the 
misuse  of  the  two  powers.  No  matter  how  much  land  you 
give  the  Russian  peasant,  or  any  other  peasant,  it  does  him  no 
permanent  good,  as  long  as  the  rulers  can  so  fix  the  laws  of 
taxation  and  of  money  as  to  rob  him  of  his  produce  as  fast  as 
he  makes  it. 

So  plain  is  this  truth  to  me  that  I  marvel  at  Tolstoy,  when 
he  virtually  prophesies  that  the  millennium  will  set  in  when 
we  shall  have  given  everybody  a  piece  of  land. 

Consider  a  moment.  Who  are  the  present  masters  of  the 
world  ? 

Those  who  control  the  m»oney.  The  Rothschilds  are  typical 
of  the  class  referred  to ;  do  they  own  any  land  ? 

Do  the  kings  of  high  finance  buy  up  vast  domains  in  order 
that  they  may  be  served  by  a  lot  of  tenants  ? 

By  no  means.  The  Rothschilds  own  no  land  except  their 
town  and  country  homes. 

Yet  even  the  ruthless  Bismarck  feared  them  so  much  that 
not  a  penny-worth  of  damage  was  done  to  the  Rothschild 
property  in  the  havoc  of  invasion  which  swept  over  France 
forty-odd  years  ago. 

Why  should  the  kings  of  finance  bother  themselves  with  the 
ownership  of  land  and  the  collection  of  rents,  when  they  can 
so  easily  fleece  both  the  landowner  and  his  tenant? 

Why  should  railroad  kings  hunger  for  land,  when  they  hold 
at  their  mercy  the  produce  which  toiling  millions  bring  forth 
from  that  land? 

Why  should  the  manufacturing  class  reach  out  for  provinces 
to  own  and  rent,  when  they  can  so  frame  the  laws  as  to  draw 
enormous  annual  tribute  from  the  agricultural  classes,  without 
any  of  the  risks  or  any  of  the  responsibilities  of  ownership  ? 

Change  these  infernal  laws,  and  anybody  who  wants  land 
can  buy  it.  Land  is  plentiful  and  it  is  cheap.    Not  only  has 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


199 


the  Government  vast  areas  of  land  awaiting  the  settler,  but 
the  country  is  clotted  with  abandoned  farms,  which  can  be  had 
almost  for  the  asking.  Thousands  of  them  can  be  bought  for 
less  than  the  improvements  cost.    Why  were  they  abandoned  \ 

Because  the  men  who  owned  them  could  not  make  a  decent 
living  out  of  them  after  paying  taxes,  railroad  and  express 
company  extortions. 

Give  the  people  land  while  these  conditions  prevail,  and 
they  could  not  keep  it  to  save  their  lives. 


Note: — In  the  official  report  of  the  Land  Office  (Washington, 
D.  C),  it  is  stated  that  Uncle  Sam  still  has  upwards  of  695,000,000 
acres  of  land  to  give  to  Homesteaders,  under  the  Acts  of  IS 68,  and 
extra  inducements  are  being  offered  to  have  these  public  lands 
settled.    October,  1912. 


The  Stewardship. 


What  are  you  doing  with  the  talent  which  God  gave  you  ? 

In  what  way  are  you  trying  to  live  for  your  fellow  man  as 
well  as  for  yourself?  What  is  your  conception  of  your 
responsibility  as  a  wonderfully-made,  God-sent  messenger  to 
the  world? 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  we  will  cut  loose  from  the  noisy  crowd 
and  retire  into  a  privacy  upon  which  the  world  shall  not 
break.  But  can  we  do  it?  Can  we  detach  ourselves  from  the 
world,  its  hurly  burly,  its  stern  realities?  Can  we  harden 
ourselves  against  the  prickings  of  Conscience,  deafen  our  ears 
to  the  call  of  Duty  ? 

You  see  that  the  world  needs  earnest  workers,— and  you  are 
ashamed  to  fold  your  hands  and  sit  in  slippered  ease  at  your 
fire-side.  You  hear  the  din  which  rises  from  the  great  battle- 
field of  life;  you  see  the  lines  of  the  righteous  waver  and 
break;  you  hear  the  trumpet  which  calls  for  you  and  you  are 
ashamed  not  to  go.  You  cannot  bear  that  evil  shall  triumph 
while  conscience  calls  you  "coward!"  because  you  will  not  take 
your  place  in  the  battle-line.  No;  it  may  be  madness,  but 
wheresoever  Eight  unfurls  her  flag  and  cries  "Follow  me!" 
you  must  drop  all  and  march. 

The  law  of  nature  rules  us  all.  The  easy-going,  bask-in- 
the-  sun  man  is  one  thing,  and  a  very  useful  sort  of  thing  in 
some  ways.  He  can,  under  favorable  circumstances,  fill  the 
house  with  children,  delight  the  Roosevelt  soul,  and  wear  out 
chair  bottoms  on  the  village  sidewalk,  while  his  over- worked 
wife  earns  and  cooks  the  dinner,  and  the  tax  collector  takes 
from  thriftier  citizens  the  money  which  educates  his  children. 

But  the  law  of  your  nature  is  different,  and  where  it  com- 
mands you  dare  not  disobey.  It  says  "Come!"  and  you  come; 
it  says  "Go  !"  and  you  go.  No  matter  how  distant  the  journey, 
it  must  be  taken;  no  matter  how  hopeless  the  task,  it  must  be 
tried. 

In  no  other  way  can  you  quiet  the  voice  within ;  on  no  other 
terms  can  you  make  peace  with  yourself. 

Death  were  better  than  loss  of  self-respect,  and  to  keep  that, 
you  and  Duty  must  walk  the  long  path  hand  in  hand. 

What,  truly,  is  the  life  worth  living? 

It  is  to  cultivate,  expand,  energize  and  consecrate  all  that 
is  best  within  you ;  to  search  for  Truth  and  Right  and  to  lay 
your  willing  sword  at  their  feet;  to  combat  all  shams  and 
hypocricies  and  superstitions  and  frauds  and  errors  and 
oppressions ;  to  love  the  best  interests  of  your  fellow-man  and 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  201 


to  put  your  whole  heart  in  the  struggle  for  his  advancement,  in 
spite  of  his  own  cruel  hatred  and  persecution. 

What  though  this  life  condemns  37ou  to  unrequited  labor, 
unappreciated  effort,  the  ingratitude  which  cuts  like  a  knife, 
and  the  misrepresentation  which  chills  worse  than  the  wintry 
wind?  All  this  is  outward,  temporary,  inconsequent,  the 
mere  passing  of  the  fleeting  clouds,  nothing  more  than  inci- 
dental discords  on  the  great  harp  of  life.  Things  like  these 
wound,  inflict  pain,  sadden  the  soul  somewhat,  but  they  do 
not  change  the  course  of  the  vessel  nor  make  coward  him  who 
stands  sturdily  at  the  wheel  steering  through  the  night  by  the 
everlasting  stars. 

He  knows,  he  knows  that  he  has  laid  his  course  aright ;  and 
that  if,  when  morning  breaks,  the  harbor  is  not  in  sight,  the 
fault  will  not  be  his. 

He  will  keep  his  rudder  true :  no  more  is  in  his  power. 

The  life  which  is  worth  living  has  not  always  led  to  ease, 
worclly  success,  happiness  and  earthly  honors. 

Too  often  the  man  who  consecrates  himself  to  the  nobler 
purpose  has  been  what  the  world  called  a  failure,  has  been 
led  away  into  captivity  by  pitiless  foes,  has  died  at  the  stake 
amid  tortures. 

But,  like  the  Indian  brave,  such  a  warrior  has  never  feared 
the  stake  nor  the  tortures. 

Like  the  Indian  brave^  such  a  warrior  despises  those  who 
torment  him,  and  amid  the  flames  in  which  he  dies  his  death 
song  rises  to  thrill  the  world. 

"I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  Never  once  did  I  lower  my 
flag.  To  the  Eight,  as  God  gave  me  to  see  it,  I  was  always 
true.   Not  once  did  I  bend  the  knee  to  the  Wrong,  consciously. 

"All  my  life  I  fought  for  the  betterment  of  humanity! 
Here  are  the  scars  to  show  it.  Defeat  has  rolled  over  me,  but 
not  dishonor. 

"To  no  man  or  woman  have  I  knowingly  done  hurt;  if  I 
have  not  done  some  good,  it  is  not  because  I  failed  to  try. 

"On  millions  of  my  fellow-men  I  found  the  chains  of  a 
bondage  more  galling  than  slavery :  I  did  my  utmost  to  show 
them  how  to  be  free. 

"Millions  I  found  hungry,  naked,  homeless :  I  did  my  best 
to  point  the  way  out  of  Poverty  into  Plenty. 

"I  found  the  old  foes  of  the  human  race  winning  ground 
day  by  day:  the  rich  man  grinding  the  face  of  the  poor;  the 
tyrant  using  Law  and  Government  to  rob  the  people;  the 
priest  again  spreading  the  cloud  of  ignorant  Faith  over  the 
sunny  fields  of  God-given  Reason;  the  Church  and  the  State 
once  more  uniting  to  plunder  the  human  race  and  to  divide 
the  spoil. 


202  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


"Against  these  ancient  devourers  of  men,  against  these 
relentless  foes  of  the  freedom  and  development  of  humanity, 
I  raised  the  cry  of  defiance,  fought  them  with  all  the  power 
that  was  within  me,  doing  what  man  might  do  to  arouse  my 
fellow-man  to  a  sense  of  the  peril  which  was  coming  upon 
him. 

"Yea !  I  have  fought  a  good  fight.  Here  are  the  wounds. 
No  white  flag  flew  over  my  citadel.    It  held  out  to  the  last. 

"Loneliness  pained  but  did  not  subdue  me;  persecution 
saddened  but  did  not  conquer  me;  friends  deserted  me  and 
foes  multiplied,  but  I  was  not  utterly  cast  down.  The  sacred 
torch  of  human  progress  I  held  aloft,  even  as  better  men  had 
done  in  the  ages  of  the  past. 

"Its  light  will  not  fail.  Others  will  seize  upon  it  and  bear 
it  on.  Some  day  the  night  will  pass,  and  the  human  race  will 
no  longer  grope  in  the  gloom. 

"In  that  my  faith  is  strong.  For  that  I  have  never  ceased  to 
watch  and  pray  and  work. 

"And  now  my  part  is  done.  The  shadows  gather  about  me — 
but  I  am  not  afraid.  The  voices  from  the  darkness  call  for 
me — and  without  regret  I  go. 

"Duty  grants  me  her  honorable  discharge;  Conscience 
acquits  me  of  her  service;  the  boon  of  Peace  within  settles 
upon  me  with  the  caress  of  infinite  calm — and  so  I  pass  down 
into  the  turning  of  the  darkened  road,  with  no  pang  of 
remorse  in  my  heart  and  no  chill  of  doubt  or  fear  on  my  soul.n 

Thus  one  will  have  lived  the  life  worth  living,  whether  he 
dwells  in  log  hut  or  stately  mansion. 

While  it  is  yet  day  and  he  can  work,  he  works,  unhasting 
and  unresting.  At  the  loom  of  time  he  toils  persistently, 
weaving  into  his  life-garment,  threads  of  gold. 

The  creed  of  such  a  man  is  an  inspiration ;  his  life  a  call  to 
duty.  His  tomb  becomes  an  altar;  his  death  a  song  of 
triumph.  Neither  rust  nor  time  shall  dim  the  splendor  of  his 
effort  ;  and  the  influence  of  his  thought  and  his  example  shall 
not  be  lost  upon  the  world  as  long  as  Duty  has  a  devotee  and 
Truth  a  holy  shrine. 


The  Reign  of  the  Technicality 


Was  there  ever  a  judicial  system  more  utterly  abused  than 
that  which  we  English-speaking  people  have  established? 

Is  it  really  anything  better  than  Trial  by  Combat?  Or 
walking  over  heated  plowshares  ?  Or  being  tied  hand  and  foot 
and  tossed  into  the  water  to  find  out  whether  one  will  float 
or  sink? 

After  all  is  said  and  done,  the  present  method  of  trying  law 
cases  is  nothing  but  a  battle  of  the  lawyers,  and  he  who  has  the 
strongest  lawyer  generally  wins.  It  is  only  when  the  Judge  on 
the  bench  lends  his  powerful  aid  to  the  good  cause,  that  the 
weak  lawyer  can  win  against  an  attorney  who  outclasses  him. 

In  bygone  days,  the  man  accused  of  crime  was  too  cruelly 
treated.  He  was  inhumanly  tortured,  to  make  him  confess. 
To  escape  the  frightful  suffering,  many  innocent  persons  con- 
victed themselves  of  crime.  In  swinging  away  from  this 
barbarous  mistreatment  of  the  prisoner,  the  pendlum  of 
human  tenderness  swung  too  far  the  other  way.  The  State 
is  not  now  permitted  to  ask  the  accused  any  questions  at  al], 
unless  the  prisoner  voluntarily  goes  to  the  witness  box.  This 
is  obviously  nonsensical.  Xo  innocent  man  could  have  any 
possible  objection  to  going  on  the  stand  as  a  witness,  and  no 
guilty  man  should  be  allowed  to  escape  for  the  reason  that  he 
alone  can  establish  his  guilt. 

Under  the  practise  in  most  States,  a  prisoner  can  make  his 
own  statement,  say  anything  and  everything  he  pleases  relevant 
to  the  case,  and  yet  the  State  cannot  ask  him  the  simplest 
question. 

The  result  is  that  the  guilty  are  constantly  walking  out  of 
the  Court,  acquitted,  because  the  State  is  unable  to  establish 
some  fact  necessary  to  a  conviction. 

In  "Ten  Thousand  a  Year."  we  have  a  fair  illustration  of 
the  faultiness  of  our  system  as  a  means  of  meting  out  Justice. 
A  clerk  has  been  given  a  deed  to  engross.  It  must  be  written 
on  parchment,  which  is  costly.  In  transcribing,  he  makes  an 
error  in  a  word  of  no  importance.  Fearing  that  his  employer 
will  discharge  him  for  carelessness  if  he  reports  the  error  and 
asks  for  another  parchment,  the  clerk  neatly  erases  the  word 
which  is  wrong  and  writes  in  its  place,  the  word  which  is 
right. 

The  thing  is  so  neatly  done  that  the  Attorney  never  detects 
the  erasure.  The  deed  is  duly  executed,  enrolled,  and  made 
part  of  the  muniment  of  title  to  an  estate  worth  ten  thousand 
pounds.  ($48,000).  per  vear. 


204  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


After  awhile,  a  keen  lawyer  discovers,  as  he  thinks,  a  flaw 
in  the  title  to  this  estate.  Tittlebat  Titmouse,  Esquite,  is 
thought  to  be  the  true  heir,  and  is  coached  as  Claimant. 
Tittlebat  is  a  poor  clerk — a  poor  one  in  all  sorts  of  ways, — 
and  the  author  displays  him  as  a  bumptious  idiot  of  great 
proportion  and  variety. 

A  big  law-case  starts  up  to  try  the  title  to  that  estate.  The 
lawyers  want  a  slice  of  that  Ten  Thousand  a  Year.  In  due 
time,  the  case  comes  on  to  be  heard,  and  no  book  that  I  know 
of  contains  a  better  account  of  that  battle  of  legal  giants  than 
does  this  of  Samuel  Warren,  himself  a  lawyer. 

At  first,  Tittlebat  Titmouse  seems  to  have  proved  his  title. 
He  is  the  true  heir,  and  the  proud  family  which  has  luxuriated 
in  that  noble  income  of  ten  thousand  a  year  must  give  it  up  to 
Tittlebat  and  his  lawyers. 

But  the  other  side  brings  its  guns  into  action,  and  begins  to 
bombard  the  plaintiff's  position.  Deed  after  deed  is  produced, 
link  after  link  in  the  chain  of  title  passes  through  the  hands 
of  lawyers  and  judges  and  no  flaw  is  found.  Tittlebat's  case 
seems  to  be  boing  slowly  but  surely  up  Salt  River.  Blue  funk 
begins  to  take  possession  of  Tittlebat  and  his  backers.  Then 
the  crisis  comes.  Defendants  offer  in  evidence  the  very  deed 
which  makes  their  chain  complete. 

Confidently  the  paper  is  offered, — anxiously  it  is  taken  in 
hand  by  Plaintiff's  counsel  for  examination.  First  one,  then 
another  of  the  big  lawyers  scan  the  deed.  It  seems  to  be  all 
right.  But,  hold  on !  is  that  the  right  stamp  ?  One  of  the 
Plaintiff's  attorneys  dives  into  a  bag,  fishes  out  a  law-book, 
finds  the  stamp-act  for  the  year  in  which  the  deed  is  made. 
Alas !  the  stamp  is  the  right  one.  So  that  precious  dream  of 
an  "objection"  to  the  deed  goes  glimmering.  Exultantly,  the 
leading  lawyer  on  the  other  side  extends  his  hand  to  take  back 
the  deed,  so  that  he  may  offer  it,  and  take  his  verdict. 

But  no — no,  indeed  ! — one  vigilant,  lynx-eyed  fellow  on  the 
Plaintiff's  side  discovers  what  he  thinks  is  an  erasure!  Great 
excitement  follows.  Consternation  on  the  one  side,  and  elation 
on  the  other.  A  magnifying  glass  is  called  for;  the  small 
speck  on  the  deed  is  made  to  yield  up  its  secret — yes — there 
is,  unmistakably,  the  evidence  that  the  clerk  in  writing  out 
the  deed  erased  a  word  which  had  no  business  there  and  put 
in  one  which  belonged  there. 

Tittlebat  wins  an  estate  that  isn't  his  and,  for  a  brief  season, 
enjoys  another  man's  property.  And  all  because  the  law  is,  in 
very  many  respects  what  Mr.  Bumble  conditionally  said  it  is, 
— "a  ass." 

In  running  away  from  the  perils  of  forgery,  in  legal  papers, 
the  law  went  too  far  in  the  opposite  direction.  Since  "Ten 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  205 

Thousand  a  Year"  was  published,  there  has  beeen  a  relaxation 
of  the  rigid  rule  which  did  not  allow  explanations  of  changes 
in  notes,  deeds,  etc.,  but  where  the  Technicality  loosens  its 
hold  at  one  place  it  tightens  it  at  another. 

A  veteran  Georgia  lawyer  declared,  in  a  recent  address  to 
the  Bar  Association,  that  seventy-three  per  cent  of  all  the 
cases  are  decided  on  technicalities. 

Pray  reflect  upon  that.  There  is  deep  significance  in  the 
statement.  It  means  that  nearly  three-fourths  of  all  law  cases 
are  not  decided  on  their  merits. 

Can  such  a  system  be  meeting  the  requirements  of  Justice  ? 

The  question  carries  its  answer  with  it.  We  might  as  well 
let  John  Doe  hire  a  man  to  fight  Richard  Eoe's  man,  and  make 
a  ring,  put  the  two  champions  within  it.  and  say — as  in  olden 
times. — "Fight,  and  God  defend  the  right." 

Not  long  ago,  I  was  in  the  Supreme  Court  room  of  Georgia, 
awaiting  my  turn  to  present  a  case.  Preceding  our  case  was 
one  in  which  a  man  convicted  of  willful,  deliberate  assassina- 
tion was  seeking  to  upset  the  conviction. 

The  undisputed  facts  in  the  record  showed  that  the  deceased 
had  not  killed  himself. 

There  was  absolutely  no  question  raised  by  the  defense 
upon  that  point.  The  whole  case  had  proceeded  upon  the  self- 
evident  fact  that  somebody  had  killed  the  man.  There  was  no 
pretense  whatever  that  he  had  killed  himself.  Yet  the  techni- 
cal rule  is  that  the  plea  of  Not  Guilty  throws  upon  the  State 
the  burden  of  proving  the  unlawful  killing,  and  in  this  case 
the  Judge  of  the  Court  below  had,  in  his  charge  to  the  jury, 
referred  to  deceased  as  having  been  killed.  Defendant's 
counsel  therefore  was  asking  that  the  Supreme  Court  set  aside 
the  verdict  because  the  Judge  had  expressed  an  opinion  upon 
a  disputed  fact. 

Technically  the  fact  was  in  dispute — actually  it  was  not; 
yet  the  Supreme  Court  strongly  intimated  that  it  would  be 
compelled  to  grant  the  man  another  trial. 

Consider  the  California  decision,  by  which  those  grafters  of 
San  Francisco  are  escaping  just  punishment  for  their  crimes. 

The  Mayor,  Schmitz,  and  the  Boss,  Abe  Reuff,  compelled 
certain  saloon  and  restaurant  men  to  pay  large  sums  for  the 
privilege  of  continuing  their  business  under  the  customary 
license.  Unless  they  would  pay  bribes  to  the  Boss  and  the 
Mayor,  they  would  have  to  close  up  their  shops  and  go  out 
of  business. 

Yet  the  Appellate  Court  decides  that  there  is  no  crime ! 

With  astounding  effrontery  the  Court  says  that  although 
Schmitz  and  Reuff  did  threaten  these  saloon  and  restaurant 
keepers,  and  did  thereby  force  money  out  of  them,  "the  indict- 


20fi  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

merit  is  insufficient  because  it  does  not  allege  or  show  that  the 
specific  injury  threatened  was  an  unlawful  injury." 

So  it  would  seem  that  some  of  our  courts,  eager  to  screen 
miscreants  who  deserve  the  severest  penalties,  have  evolved  a 
new  kind  of  injury  which  one  man  may  do  to  another.  There 
is  a  lawful  injury  which  I  may  do  my  fellow  man,  as  well  as 
an  injury  that  is  unlawful. 

The  Mayor  of  a  city  may  collude  with  the  local  Boss,  and 
the  two  may  go  the  rounds  of  the  stores,  saloons,  restaurants, 
hotels,  etc.,  saying,  "If  you  don't  cross  these  itching  palms  with 
gold,  you'll  get  no  license  to  continue  business — See  ?" 

Yet  this  shameless  California  Court  announces  that  such  a 
threat  as  that  is  not  a  threat  to  do  "an  unlawful  injury."** 

Of  all  the  triumphs  won  by  the  imperious  Technicality, 
surely  none  is  more  gorious  than  this  last  one  in  California. 

What  we  need  is  something  that  will  lessen  the  power  of 
the  lawyers,  liberalize  the  code  of  practice,  destroy  the  tendency 
of  technical  rules  to  defeat  justice,  increase  the  control  of  the 
Judge  and  jury  over  the  management  of  the  trial. 

At  present,  a  court-house  combat  is  too  much  like  a  mere 
tournament  where  the  lawyers  come  into  the  lists  and  tilt  for 
their  clients,  while  the  crowd  sits  there  to  acclaim  the  victor, 
and  the  Judge  presides  to  award  the  prize. 

In  every  case,  the  Judge  should  be  the  Chief  Manager  of  the 
trial ;  he  should  question  each  witness ;  he  should  call  attention 
to  errors  of  omission  and  commission,  in  order  that  the  merits 
of  the  cause  may  get  fairly  presented ;  he  should  question  every 
defendant  in  criminal  cases;  he  should  instruct  the  attorneys 
on  either  side  to  correct  their  pleadings  when  a  litigant  is  in 
danger  of  losing  his  rights  on  account  of  some  error  of  his 
lawyer ;  he  should  see  to  it  that  no  man  wins  or  loses  a  case  on 
Technicality ;  he  should  be  ready,  at  any  time  before  the  verdict 
has  been  received,  to  reopen  the  case  for  material  correction 
of  any  and  every  sort. 

In  other  words,  a  trial  of  a  law-suit  should  be  an  earnest, 
conscientious  effort  of  Judge  and  jury  to  measure  up  to  the 
highest  standard  of  duty,  and  that  is  to  find  out  how  this  case 
should  be  decided  on  its  merits. 

In  a  rough  way,  the  following  anecdote  illustrates  my  idea: 

After  William  H.  Crawford  had  had  his  first  stroke  of 
paralysis — causing  him  to  lose  the  Presidency — his  day  of 
usefulness  in  the  national  arena  was  over.  He  was  appointed 
Judge  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  Northern  Circuit,  and 
died  in  that  office.  On  one  occasion  he  was  presiding  in  Talia- 
ferro County,  and  a  smart  lawyer  from  Augusta  was  leading 
a  case,  on  one  side,  while  the  other  side  was  represented  by  a 
member  of  the  Crawfordville  bar,  no  match  for  his  adversary. 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc'.  207 


The  Augusta  lawyer  was  carrying  things  with  a  high  hand 
and  having  it  all  his  own  way.  Old  Crawford  was  "scrouched" 
down  in  his  chair,  and  seemed  to  be  nodding.  The  little 
country  lawyer,  who  had  right  on  his  side,  was  in  great  dis- 
tress. Time  after  time  he  jumped  up,  objecting,  remonstrat- 
ing, and  correcting,  but  Crawford  took  no  notice.  Finally  it 
came  time  to  make  the  speeches  to  the  jury.  The  country 
lawyer  made  his,  as  best  he  could,  and  then  came  the  big  lawyer 
from  the  city  of  Augusta.  Having  the  conclusion,  he  made 
the  most  of  the  advantage.  He  misstated  the  evidence,  put 
the  law  as  he  wanted  it,  made  fun  of  his  opponent,  and  was 
having  a  fine  time,  generally.  Old  Crawford  dozed,  the  jury 
enjoyed,  the  little  country  lawyer  suffered.  He  kept  jumping 
up,  interrupting  the  Augusta  lawyer,  and  disturbing  the 
slumber  of  the  Judge.  Finally  Crawford  opened  his  eyes  and 
said,  "Never  mind,  Mr.  S. — never  mind.  You  sit  down  and 
rest  easy.  Let  Mr.  B.  go  on  and  get  through.  I've  got  the  last 
whack  at  that  jury." 

Naturally,  this  observation  of  His  Honor  dampened  the 
ardor  of  the  Augusta  lawyer,  considerably,  and  he  hastened 
to  a  conclusion. 

Then  old  Crawford  roused  himself,  those  great  blue-gray 
eyes  kindled,  and  when  he  had  his  full  "whack  at  that  jury," 
the  best  lawyer  had  lost  the  case,  and  justice  had  prevailed. 


Concerning  Money 


In  the  early  days  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria,  there 
came  on  to  be  heard,  before  her  Lord  Chancellor,  a  very 
unusual  case. 

The  Emperor  of  Austria  had  brought  process  against  Louis 
Kossuth,  the  Hungarian  patriot,  to  restrain  him  from  issuing 
certain  bits  of  paper  which  he  had  caused  to  be  printed  in 
England,  for  the  purpose  of  circulation  in  Hungary. 

Translated  into  our  language,  the  wording  of  these  strips  of 
paper  was  as  follows: 

"One  Florin. 

"This  monetary  note  will  be  received  in  every  Hungarian 
State  and  public  pay  office  as 
"  'One  Florin  in  Silver.' 

"Its  nominal  value  is  guaranteed  by  the  State.  In  the  name 
of  the  nation. 

"Kossuth,  Louis." 

It  was  shown  that  more  than  one  hundred  millions  of  these 
florin  notes  had  been  prepared,  and  were  intended  to  be  used 
in  Hungary  as  money. 

The  Emperor  contended  that  "the  introduction  of  said  notes 
into  Hungary  will  create  a  spurious  circulation,  and  thereby 
cause  great  detriment  to  the  State  and  to  the  subjects  of  the 
plaintiff." 

It  further  appeared  in  evidence  that  the  Emperor  had  sur- 
rendered to  the  National  Bank  of  Austria  the  privilege  of 
supplying  the  Empire  with  paper  money,  and  doubtless  this 
bank  was  the  instigator  of  the  Bill  in  Equity  brought  against 
Kossuth.  The  National  Bank  of  Austria  had  the  same  feeling 
against  Kossuth  that  our  Whiskey  Trust  has  against  the 
Moonshiner.  In  each  case,  the  name  and  power  and  money 
of  the  Government  is  used  by  a  Monopoly  to  stamp  out  Com- 
petition. 

In  delivering  his  opinion,  the  Lord  Chancellor  uttered  this 
truism :  "The  right  of  issuing  notes  for  the  payment  of  money, 
as  part  of  the  circulating  medium  in  Hungary,  seems  to  follow 
from  the  right  to  create  money  belonging  to  the  supreme  power 
in  every  State.  This  right  is  not  confined  to  the  issue  of  por- 
tions of  the  precious  metals  of  intrinsic  value  according  to 
their  weight  and  fineness,  but  under  it  portions  of  the  coarser 
metals,  or  of  other  substances,  may  be  made  to  represent  vary- 
ing amounts  in  gold  and  silver,  for  which  they  may  pass  cur- 
rent." 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  209 


Kossuth  was  enjoined  from  issuing  the  notes,  upon  the  sole 
ground  that  he  was  an  exile  in  England,  with  no  de  facto 
authority  in  Hungary.  He,  himself,  had  admitted  that  the 
Emperor  Francis  Joseph  reigned  over  Hungary,  and  was,  in 
fact,  its  Emperor.  For  this  reason,  the  Chancellor  held, 
properly,  that  the  Emperor,  alone,  had  the  right  to  supply 
Hungary  with  notes  to  be  used  as  money. 

In  the  history  of  the  world  there  never  was  a  period  when  a 
strong,  orderly  government  allowed  a  subject  to  coin  money. 
The  state,  invariably,  held  on  to  this  mighty  lever,  as  one  of 
the  indispensable  prerogatives  of  sovereign  power.  To  make 
laws,  to  appoint  public  functionaries,  to  levy  taxes,  to  control 
navigable  streams,  to  police  the  public  highways,  to  control 
the  army  and  navy,  to  hold  the  national  purse  and  sword,  to 
negotiate  treaties  with  other  nations,  to  regulate  foreign  com- 
merce, to  establish  courts,  to  declare  war  or  make  peace,  and 
to  create  money,  were  among  the  universal,  inseparable  attri- 
butes of  royalty. 

When  the  State  was  weak,  powerful  vassals  waged  private 
war,  robbers  infested  the  highways,  pirates  roamed  the  seas, 
and  private  citizens  created  money.  When  the  state  recovered 
its  strength,  it  invariably  swept  the  pirate  off  the  sea,  the 
robber  off  the  highway,  put  down  the  strife  of  lord  against 
lord,  and  took  back, — with  stern  admonitions, — the  exclusive 
right  to  create  money. 

Historians,  writing  of  the  Dark  Ages,  never  fail  to  tell  us 
how  the  anarchy  of  the  times  revealed  itself  in  the  disintegra- 
tion of  sovereign  power.  Private  citizens  encroached  upon  the 
state;  the  lords  usurped  the  prerogatives  of  the  King;  the 
security  of  the  rights  of  the  individual  disappeared.  Each 
man  held  what  he  or  his  order  were  strong  enough  to  hold, 
and  no  more.  Even  in  the  Middle  Ages,  it  required  all  the 
resolute  courage  of  the  strongest  Kings  to  redeem  the  sovereign 
prerogatives  which  the  feudal  lords  had  arrogantly  usurped. 

As  chaos  gave  way  to  systematic  government,  the  state  was 
seen  to  have  reconquered  the  sovereign  attributes  which  the 
haughty  nobles  had  usurped;  and  thereafter  no  lord  had 
courts  of  his  own,  dungeons  of  his  own,  gibbets  of  his  own, 
warfare  of  his  own,  or  money  coinage  of  his  oavii.  The  King's 
law,  the  King's  courts,  the  King's  money,  were  supreme  and 
exclusive. 

Was  gold  usable,  as  money,  before  the  King  placed  his 
stamp  upon  it  and  declared,  by  law,  that  a  certain  amount  of 
gold  thus  stamped,  should  be  a  guinea?  Did  Gocl  make 
pounds,  shillings  and  pence,  or  did  the  King  do  it  ?  Was  silver 
usable  as  money  until  similarly  favored  by  the  law  and  the 
royal  stamp?    Could  one  take  a  silver  cup  and  go  into  the 


210  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


market,  and  pass  it  about  as  money  ?  Could  the  King  himself, 
take  the  gold  plate  off  his  table,  and  go  into  the  market,  and 
circulate  the  gold  plate  as  money? 

Before  the  passage  of  the  law  making  the  stamped  gold 
legal  tender,  money  does  not  exist.  The  law  and  the  stamp 
make  the  money  out  of  the  gold.  God  made  the  pine  tree, 
but  the  sawmill  makes  the  lumber.  God  made  the  chicken, 
but  the  cook  makes  the  fricassee.  God  made  the  swine,  but 
man  made  the  sausage. 

Kicardo  declared  that  the  universal  adoption  of  gold  and 
silver  as  money  metals  had  been  an  immense  benefit  to  the 
world,  for  they  drove  out  such  clumsy  currency  as  the  Wooden 
Stick  of  England,  ("Tally  rod"  of  the  British  exchequer),  the 
Tobacco  of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  the  Peltries,  of  the 
Western  States,  Wampum  of  New  England,  Leather  of  France 
and  Spain,  Bark  in  China,  Lead  of  Burmah,  etc., — but  he 
said  that  the  time  had  come  when  a  still  greater  benefit  to  the 
world  would  result  from  the  abandonment  of  metallic  money, 
altogether,  and  the  adoption  of  a  scientific  paper  currency. 

Upon  this,  all  independent  thinkers  who  understand  the 
subject,  have  long  been  agreed.  Those  who  really  know  how 
completely  the  Money  Trust  dominates  the  world,  and  how 
that  remorseless  tyranny  is  based  upon  metallic  money,  can- 
not but  denounce,  with  "divine  indignation,"  the  horrible 
greed  of  the  comparatively  few  money-changers  who  use  the 
Coin  fetich  to  hypnotize  and  plunder  the  nations  of  earth. 
When  gold  threatens  to  be  plentiful,  (as  was  the  case  after  the 
discoveries  in  California,)  the  money-changer  loses  his  affec- 
tion for  gold  and  pays  his  court  to  silver ;  when  silver  becomes 
too  common  and  gold  scarce,  silver  loses  favor  and  gold  is 
again  the  Money  King's  favorite.  Even  now,  paid  writers  of 
the  Money  Trust  are  demonstrating  with  admirable  skill,  the 
fact  that  the  present  panic  has  been  caused  by  the  huge  increase 
in  the  output  of  the  gold  mines. 

Why  does  the  Money  Trust  want  to  limit  the  supply  of  real 
money?  For  the  same  reason  that  any  other  Trust  wants  to 
limit  the  supply.  The  bankers  seek  control,  and  the  smaller 
the  volume  of  real  money,  the  more  easily  they  can  control  it. 
If  the  bankers  control  the  money,  they  rule.  Even  the 
Emperor  of  Germany,  with  all  of  his  imperious  arbitrariness, 
would  never  dare  to  go  to  war  until  he  had  consulted  the 
Rothschilds.  Bleichroders,  and  other  monarchs  of  the  realm 
of  money.  This  tyranny  of  the  banker  is  world-wide.  Come 
war  or  peace,  come  famine  and  pestilence,  come  seven  fat  years 
or  seven  lean  years,  the  banker  rules;  and  he  does  it  with 
"coin."   He  first  chains  the  nations  to  the  word  "coin;" — then 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


211 


he  gets  his  grip  on  the  supply  of  "coin;" — thus  he  holds  the 
chain  which  fetters  the  globe. 

How  simple  it  would  be  to  shatter  the  chain  and  escape  this 
odious  servitude,  by  doing  precisely  what  Louis  Kossuth  pro- 
posed to  do  for  Hungary !  By  the  exercise  of  that  right 
which  the  Chancellor  of  Great  Britain  declared  to  be  a  part 
of  the  supreme  power  of  every  State,  a  scientific  system  of 
paper  currency  could  be  created,  based  on  the  strength  of  the 
State,  answering  the  needs  of  every  citizen  of  the  State,  and 
absolutely  independent  of  the  bankers.  To  smash  the  Money 
Trust,  whose  monstrous  rapacity  preys  upon  every  nation, 
it  is  but  necessary  that  the  State  shall  assert  its  inherent 
power  to  create  its  own  currenccy.  A  dollar,  whether  in 
metal  or  paper,  should  be  inscribed,  "this  is  a  dollar."  That 
declaration,  and  the  law  which  makes  the  dollar  a  legal  tender 
for  debts,  are  sufficient.  There  should  lie  -imply  the  sovereign 
mandate.  "This  is  a  dollar."  Absolutely  nothing  more  is 
necessary  to  make  that  currency  as  good  and  as  strong  as  the 
Government  which  create-  it. 

All  governments,  being  composed  of  human  beings,  may 
perish.  Of  course  when  the  Government  is  overturned,  its 
currency  is  lost.    But  that  is  true  of  its  bonds,  also. 

The  editors  of  our  daily  paper-  are  dreadfully  uneasy,  lest 
the  small  notes  issued  by  the  Government  should  go  the  way 
of  Confederate  money.  But  why  are  they  not  nervous  about 
the  bonds  I 

If  the  Union  should  go  to  pieces,  as  the  Southern  Con- 
federacy did.  the  bonds  would  fare  no  better  than  the  notes. 

The  East  India  Company,  acting  through  the  King's  mis- 
tress, decoyed  Charles  II.  into  sanctioning  a  scheme  which 
gave  to  the  Company  and  to  the  gold-smith  class  control 
over  the  royal  mint.  The  law  by  which  this  was  done  is  known 
as  the  "Mint  Act  of  1666,"  and  the  bribe  to  the  Yillier-  woman 
is  named  in  the  Act.  The  "joker"  clause  of  this  Act  was  so 
framed  that  the  gold-smith  class  and  the  East  India  Company 
obtained  almost  absolute  control  of  the  supply  of  money. 
Moreover,  these  same  intriguers  secured  a  fourth  charter  for 
the  East  India  Company,  in  1677,  which  authorized  the  cor- 
poration to  coin  in  India  with  its  own  stamp  gold,  silver, 
copper  and  lead. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  invests  the 
Federal  Government  with  every  sovereign  prerogative 
necessary  to  it-  performance  of  those  functions  for  which  it 
was  created.  To  make  peace  and  war.  to  collect  and  disburse 
taxes,  to  control  national  and  foreign  commerce,  to  make  laws 
and  enforce  them,  to  create  offices  and  fill  them,  to  control  the 


212 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


army  and  navy,  to  create  money, — are  among  the  necessary 
sovereign  powers  conferred  upon  the  general  Government. 
To  surrender  any  one  of  these  royal  prerogatives  in  whole  or 
in  part,  is  to  maim  the  Government.  Who  would  not  protest, 
if  it  were  proposed  to  delegate  to  private  individuals  or  cor- 
porations the  power  of  regulating  foreign  commerce?  Where 
is  the  man  in  public  life  who  would  dare  to  propose  that  the 
Government  should  surrender  to  private  individuals  or  cor- 
porations the  power  to  control  the  army,  or  the  navigable 
waters,  or  to  operate  our  postal  system?  Yet,  in  abdicating 
in  favor  of  six  thousand  national  banks  the  sovereign  pre- 
rogative of  creating  money,  the  Government  has  surrendered 
a  power  infinitely  more  precious  than  that  of  regulating 
foreign  commerce. 

The  very  life-blood  of  the  commercial  and  industrial  world 
is  money, — the  artificial  creation  by  which  we  have  agreed  to 
take  the  measure  of  the  value  of  all  commodities,  in  exchange. 
And  we  have  surrendered,  to  a  rapacious  six  thousand,  the 
terribly  dangerous  power  of  saying  how  much  life-blood  shall 
flow  into  the  veins  of  the  body-politic ! 

With  their  unconstitutional  and  calamitous  Gold  standard, 
their  absorption  of  all  the  surplus  cash  of  the  national 
treasury,  and  their  usurpation  of  the  right  to  stamp  their  own 
notes  as  money,  the  six  thousand  national  bankers  have  as 
complete  a  trust  as  the  Standard  Oil,  or  the  Steel  Trust. 

What  a  shameful  spectacle,  that  of  a  Government  of 
95,000,000  people  chained  to  a  fetich  by  a  handful  of  Wall 
Street  rascals !  Oh,  for  one  year  of  Andrew  Jackson,  to  smite 
these  infamous  scoundrels  and  to  assert  the  power  of  the  Gov- 
ernment ! 

Listen  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  (39  Barb. 
427),  announcing  its  decision  in  Hague  vs.  Powers: 

"Money  is  the  medium  of  exchange — the  standard  or  repre- 
sentative of  all  commercial  values.  It  is  that  which  men 
receive  in  exchange  and  in  satisfaction  of  labor,  and  its  various 
products;  and  whether  it  is  intrinsically  valuable  or  other- 
wise, it  is  the  standard  of  value  by  which  alone  they  are  all 
.measured.  Gold  and  silver  are  not  naturally  money,  any 
more  than  any  other  metal  product  or  fabric.  They  are  made 
so  by  law  only. 

"These  metals  become  money  by  tjie  force  and  operation  of 
law  alone. 

"The  power  (to  create  paper  money)  is  clearly  one  of  the 
attributes  of  Governmental  sovereignty  and  may  be  exercised 
wherever  it  is  deemed  necessary  or  proper  by  the  sovereign 
power." 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


213 


Thus  the  highest  Court  of  the  United  States  has  done,  as 
the  highest  court  of  Great  Britain  did, — made  a  clear  state- 
ment of  a  fact  that  is  as  old  as  government  itself,  and  which 
was  never  disputed  until  the  money-changers,  using  the  liber- 
tine King's  harlot  as  their  tool,  took  possession  of  the  irresisti- 
ble and  sovereign  power  to  control  the  money  supply  of  the 
world. 


A  Bitter  Attack  Upon  the  South 

Ever  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  there  has  been  a  grow- 
ing sentiment  on  both  sides  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  in 
favor  of  mutual  forbearance,  the  purpose  being  to  speed  the 
day  when  the  North  and  South  shall  beccome  reconciled. 

In  the  South  no  speaker  will  now  add  to  his  popularity  or 
influence  by  reckless  abuse  of  the  North. 

We  had  supposed  that  the  North  was  equally  tired  of  the 
speaker  or  writer  who  puts  the  torch  to  sectional  prejudice  or 
who  wantonly  inflicts  upon  the  South  a  blow  which  he  must 
realize  will  arouse  angry  resentment. 

When  the  last  gun  was  fired  at  Appomattox,  the  biggest,, 
bravest,  best  hearted  men  on  each  side  united  in  the  effort  to 
stem  the  tide  of  sectional  hatred  and  knit  together  the  bonds 
of  brotherly  love. 

General  Grant,  by  his  magnanimity  at  the  surrender,  set  a 
sublime  standard. 

General  Lee,  by  his  noble  advice  and  example,  gave  the 
South  a  lesson  whose  influence  for  good  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. 

Horace  Greely,  when  he  volunteered  to  sign  the  bond  of 
Jefferson  Davis,  and  Senator  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar,  of  Mississippi, 
when  he  pronounced  a  magnificent  memorial  address  upon 
Charlels  Sumner  in  the  Senate,  were  but  following  the  illustri- 
ous precedents  of  Grant  and  Lee. 

Later,  there  came  the  mission  of  Henry  Grady  and  of  John 
B.  Gordon,  upon  the  one  side,  and  the  conciliatory  words  and 
deeds  of  William  McKinley  on  the  other. 

Nor  should  we  forget  the  fine  tribute  paid  to  Southern 
character  and  courage  in  the  writings  of  Theodore  Roosevelt, 
who  as  President,  had  honored  the  sons  of  Stonewall  Jackson,, 
Jeb  Stewart  and  General  Beauregard,  and  who,  in  one  of  his 
latest  appointments,  had  given  preference  to  General  Rosser, 
the  youngest  of  the  Confederate  brigadiers. 

The  battle-scarred  veterans  of  the  North  have  been  meeting 
in  memorable  reunions  the  survivors  of  those  who  followed 
Johnston  and  Forrest  and  Jackson  and  Lee;  and  the  most 
touching  and  inspiring  scenes  have  been  witnessed  at  these 
encampments  where  the  South  and  the  North  recognized  each 
others  honesty,  valor  and  generosity,  and  each  section  vied 
with  the  other  in  the  glorious  work  of  harmonizing  the  nation. 

At  the  grave  of  General  Grant  it  was  the  presence  of  our 
Southern  soldier,  John  B.  Gordon,  which  testified  to  the  North 
the  sympathy  of  the  South. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  215 


And  during  his  administration  President  Roosevelt  inquired 
diligently  into  the  circumstances  of  the  widowed  Mrs.  Gordon 
to  know  whether  or  not  an  appointment  as  Postmaster  for  the 
city  of  Atlanta  would  be  acceptable  to  her. 

During  the  Spanish  War  the  South  sprang  into  the  ranks 
under  the  old  Flag,  at  the  tap  of  the  drum,  and  the  blood  of 
a  Southern  boy  was  the  first  that  was  shed  in  the  conflict. 

It  was  the  ranking  cavalry  leader  of  the  expiring  Con- 
federacy who  steadied  the  lines  before  Santiago,  prevented  a 
retreat,  and  brought  from  Mr.  Roosevelt  the  manly  ack- 
nowledgement that  to  General  Joseph  Wheeler,  more  than  to 
any  other  man,  was  due  the  fact  that  we  won  the  victory. 

It  was  a  Southern  boy  who  took  his  life  in  his  hands  in  the 
effort  to  block  the  Spanish  harbor,  and  worthily  earned  the 
title  of  "The  Hero  of  the  Merrimac." 

It  is  sad  to  think  that  all  this  patriotism  may  not  have  made 
a  deep  impression  upon  the  country. 

It  is  sad  to  realize  that  the  work  of  such  men  as  Alexander 
H.  Stephens,  Benjamin  H.  Hill,  Senator  Lamar,  Thomas  Nel- 
son Page  and  Henry  W.  Grady  has  left  so  much  still  to  be 
done  before  that  man,  North  or  South,  who  endeavors  to 
inflame  the  passions  of  the  sections,  shall  be  made  to  feel  that 
he  has  excited  for  himself  the  contempt  and  disgust  which  he 
deserves. 

In  a  recent  issue  of  the  New  York  Independent  comes  Albert 
Bushnell  Hart,  Professor  of  History  at  Harvard  University,, 
distilling  as  much  bitterness  and  gall  as  ever  fell  from  the 
lips  of  John  J.  Ingalls  or  Thaddeus  Stevens. 

He  writes  an  article  called  "Conditions  of  the  Southern 
Problem,"  and  a  more  thoroughly  exaggerated  and  libelous 
contribution  to  public  discussion  has  not  been  made  during  the 
last  twenty  years. 

The  average  reader  will  get  some  idea  of  the  value  of  Mr. 
Hart's  conclusion  when  he  comes  upon  the  sober  statement 
that  "white  mountaineers  (of  the  South)  have  been  known 
to  take  their  children  out  of  school  because  the  teacher  would 
insist  that  the  world  is- round." 

Who  stuffed  Dr.  Hart  with  that  old  joke? 

What  credit  does  he  do  to  himself  when  he  shows  to  the 
world  that  he  accepts  such  worn-out  jests  as  facts  ? 

Does  he  not  know  that  there  are  plenty  of  wags  all  over  the 
world — even  in  Pullman  cars — who  take  a  delight  in  playing 
upon  the  credulous? 

He  will  meet  men  who  will  tell  him  that  in  certain  back- 
woods communities  "the  people  don't  know  that  the  war  is 
over,"  or  he  will  be  told  that  in  some  mountain  counties  "they 
are  still  voting  for  Andrew  Jackson." 


216  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


But  would  Professor  Hart  take  such  statements  for  any- 
thing but  jokes? 

Doesn't  he  know  that  the  jest  about  the  rural  belief  that 
the  world  is  flat  instead  of  round  belongs  to  the  same  gray- 
haired  family? 

Even  a  professor  of  history  should  learn  that  there  is  just 
as  great  a  difference  between  jokes  and  facts  as  there  is  between 
facts  and  jokes. 

Professor  Hart  says  that  "in  a  few  communities,  notably 
South  Carolina,  the  poor  whites  have  unaccountably  discovered 
that  if  they  will  always  vote  together  they  always  have  a 
majority,  and  they  keep  a  man  of  their  own  type  in  the  United 
States  Senate.  In  most  other  States,  however,  politics  is 
directed  by  intelligent  and  honorable  men." 

Isn't  this  a  rippingly  reckless  arraignment  of  the  entire 
State  of  South  Carolina?  Does  the  Professor  of  History  at 
Harvard  mean  to  say  that  the  politics  of  South  Carolina  is 
directed  by  men  less  intelligent  and  honorable  than  those  of 
"most  other  States?" 

If  so,  upon  what  ground  does  he  base  the  accusation? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  poor  whites  do  not  control  South 
Carolina.  It  is  the  middle  class  whites  who  control  South 
Carolina,  and  who  elected  Ben  Tillman  to  the  United  States 
Senate. 

But  why  should  a  Northern  writer  select  a  Southern  Senator 
and  a  Southern  State  to  be  held  up  in  this  insulting  manner 
to  public  odium?  In  what  respect  does  Tillman's  record  in 
the  Senate,  for  honesty  .and  ability,  compare  unfavorably 
with  that  of  Quay  of  Pennsylvania,  Piatt  of  New  York,  Aid- 
rich  of  Rhode  Island,  or  Gorman  of  Maryland?  Each  one  of 
those  Senators  has  been  basely  subservient  to  thievish  cor- 
porations, and  had  helped  them  to  fatten  on  national  legisla- 
tion at  the  expense  of  the  great  body  of  the  people. 

Dr.  Hart  asks,  "Why  should  the  negro  expect  protection 
when  the  white  man  is  powerless  against  any  personal  white 
enemy  who  chooses  to  shoot  him  down  in  the  street,  when  not 
one  white  murderer  in  a  hundred  is  punished  for  his  crime?" 

Dr.  Albert  Bushnell  Hart  is  evidently  thinking  about  the 
case  of  James  Tillman,  of  South  Carolina,  who  shot  down  in 
the  street  Editor  Gonzales,  and  who  was  acquitted,  on  his  trial. 

By  all  sane  persons  it  is  admitted  to  be  utterly  unfair  to 
judge  the  entire  South,  or  North,  by  any  one  case,  or  by  any 
one  crime. 

It  is  useless  to  argue  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  James  Till- 
man; but  we  all  know  that  human  nature  is  prejudiced  by 
political  feeling;  and  none  will  deny  that  the  feud  between 
Tillman  and  Gonzales  was  a  political  feud.  The  killing  was  a 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


217 


political  killing.  In  a  case  like  that  the  action  of  court  and 
jury  will  be  influenced  by  political  feeling,  whether  the  result 
be  right  or  wrong. 

Has  Albert  Bushnell  Hart  never  heard  of  a  political  feud 
in  any  other  part  of  the  world  than  the  South,  and  has  he 
never  known  political  feeling  to  protect  one  who  was  prose- 
cuted for  a  crime  ?  Has  he  never  known  of  instances  in  North- 
ern cities  where  prisoners  at  the  Bar  apparently  owed  their 
salvation  to  secret  societies  of  any  sort — or  to  political  pull  of 
any  sort  ? 

It  has  not  been  so  very  long  since  Edward  S.  Stokes  met 
James  Fisk  on  the  staircase,  in  the  Grand  Central  Hotel,  in 
Xew  York  City,  and  shot  him  down. 

One  might  think  this  amounted  to  about  the  same  thing  as 
the  shooting  down  of  a  personal  enemy  on  the  street. 

Fisk  died,  as  Gonzales  died.  Stokes  was  tried,  as  Tillman 
was  tried.  Stokes  was  not  hanged  in  Xew  York  any  more 
than  Tillman  was  hanged  in  South  Carolina. 

Will  Dr.  Hart  please  furnish  an  explanation  which  will  not 
fit  the  South  Carolina  case  as  snugly  as  it  fits  the  Xew  York 
case? 

Professor  Hart  asks,  "Why  should  the  Northern  people 
believe  that  the  South  means  well  by  the  negro  when  such  a 
man  as  Governor  Varclaman,  of  Mississippi,  brutally 
threatens  him  and  his  white  friends  in  the  North?" 

When  and  where  has  Governor  James  K.  Vardaman 
"brutally  threatened  the  negro  and  his  Northern  friends? 

Governor  Vardaman,  not  many  clays  ago,  risked  his  politi- 
cal life,  to  say  nothing  of  personal  danger,  to  protect  a  negro 
from  a  white  mob.  Perhaps  every  white  man  in  the  mob  had 
voted  for  Vardaman,  and  was  his  personal  and  political 
friend;  yet,  although  it  was  generally  believed  that  the  negro 
was  guilty  of  a  heinous  offense,  this  Governor,  who  has  been 
singled  out  for  abuse,  did  not  hesitate  one  moment  to  jeopar- 
dize his  whole  political  future  by  throwing  around  the  hunted 
negro  the  official  protection  of  the  law. 

No  matter  how  much  Governor  Vardaman  may  be  mistaken 
in  some  of  his  views,  and  some  of  his  utterances,  no  man 
ought  now  to  deny  that  he  possesses  personal  and  political 
courage,  or  that  his  respect  for  law  is  of  that  high  character 
which  proclaims,  "T|]e  color  of  a  , jpan?s  -skip  shall  not  be  the 
njeasure  o^liis  leg^l  rights. " ~" 

Furthermore.  Dr.  Hart  says,  "in  one  respect  the  poor  whites 
are  terrible  teachers  to  the  negroes;  they  are  an  ungovernable 
people  and  do  not  allow  themselves  to  be  punished  for  such 
peccadillos  as  murder/' 

O  Mr.  Professor  of  History  at  Harvard !  has  your  blind 


'218  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


passion  against  the  South  lost  you  to  all  sense  of  proportion 
in  the  making  of  public  statements? 

If  the  poor  whites  of  the  South  "do  not  allow  themselves 
to  be  punished  for  such  little  things  as  murder,"  why  do  they 
go  to  the  penitentiary  at  all? 

You  will  find  a  sufficient  number  of  poor  whites  in  the 
penitentiaries  of  the  South — are  they  there  just  for  the  fun 
of  it  ? 

Speaking  of  the  negro,  Dr.  Hart  again  says,  "he  may  not 
murder  or  assault,  or  even  speak  saucily  to  a  white  person,  on 
most  dreadful  penalties.  Partly  for  self-protection,  still  more 
from  a  feeling  of  race  supremacy,  it  is  made  a  kind  of  lese- 
majeste  for  a  negro  to  lay  hands  on  a  white  man ;  even  to 
defend  his  family  or  his  own  life,  the  serpent  must  not  bite 
the  heel  of  the  chosen  people." 

What  utter  disregard  of  facts ! 

Let  me  cite  a  few  cases  which  come  within  my  personal 
knowledge. 

In  Mcintosh  County,  Georgia,  one  of  the  most  prominent 
white  planters  was  deputized  by  the  Sheriff  to  arrest  a  negro 
who  had  been  engaged  in  a  riot.  The  white  man  authorized 
to  arrest  the  negro  went  to  his  house  and  called  for  him  at 
night.  The  negro  refused  to  come  out.  The  deputy  forced 
his  way  in,  and  the  negro  shot  him  dead.  There  were  three 
negroes  in  the  house,  all  participating  in  resisting  the  officer. 

The  white  man's  court  acquitted  two  of  the  negroes,  and 
sent  one  up  for  ten  years. 

In  the  penitentiary  of  Georgia,  at  this  time,  are  some  white 
men  serving  out  their  terms  at  hard  labor  for  an  outrage  com- 
mitted on  a  negro  man  in  one  of  the  country  counties  near 
Atlanta. 

A  white  man,  by  the  name  of  Alec  Harvill,  belonging  to 
the  class  of  poor  whites,  was  tried  for  murder  in  one  of  the 
Piedmont  counties  for  which  Mr.  Hart  has  such  a  contempt, 
and  was  convicted. 

He  is  now  serving  a  term  in  the  penitentiary,  as  he  has  been 
doing  for  the  last  five  or  six  years. 

How  was  he  convicted?  Upon  the  testimony  of  a  single 
negro  witness.  Nobody  saw  the  alleged  crime,  or  pretended 
to  have  seen  it,  except  this  negro  boy. 

And  yet  the  white  judge  and  the  white  jury  believed  the 
negro  in  preference  to  the  father  and  mother  of  the  accused. 

In  another  of  the  Piedmont  counties  of  Georgia  a  white 
man  outraged  a  negro  woman. 

Within  the  last  ninety  days  that  criminal  has  been  tried  by 
a  white  judge  and  jury — the  prosecution  being  pushed  by  the 
State  of  Georgia  through  her  Attorney- General. 


Sketches:  Histoeical.  Literary.  Etc. 


219 


The  lower  court  convicted  the  criminal,  the  Supreme  Court- 
has  affirmed  the  finding,  and  the  white  man  will  have  to  meet 
the  penalty  of  the  law  for  his  violation  of  a  negro  woman. 

Several  years  ago  a  white  man  named  Robinson,  living  in 
Waynesboro.  Ga.,  killed  a  negro. 

The  white  man  had  cursed  a  negro  woman,  who  had  "put 
in  her  mouth"  while  he  was  holding  a  conversation  with  a 
negro  man. 

"When  Robinson  cursed  the  negro  woman  the  deceased  threw 
off  his  coat  and  rushed  at  Robinson,  exclaiming.  "I  won't  stand 
that!" 

Robinson  backed,  saying.  "Don't  come  on  me!  Stand  back!" 

The  negro  continued  to  advance :  Robinson  drew  his  pistol 
and  shot  his  assailant. 

Robinson  was  tried,  convicted  and  sent  to  the  penitentiary. 

In  Wilkes  County.  Georgia,  a  convict  boss  whipped  a  negro 
convict  who  sulked  and  wouldnt  work.  The  negro  had  a  bad 
character,  and  was  serving  sentence  for  a  grave  offense. 

The  whipping  may  possibly  have  caused  the  negro's  death, 
though  there  was  much  testimony  to  the  effect  that  he  died 
from  natural  causes. 

At  any  rate,  a  white  judge  and  jury  convicted  the  boss  who 
inflicted  the  whipping,  and  he  had  to  serve  his  time  in  the 
penitentiary.    Robert  Cannon  was  his  name. 

In  another  instance  I  myself  furnished  the  evidence  of 
maltreatment  of  a  negro  convict  in  the  Georgia  penitentiary  r 
and.  the  facts  being  made  known  to  the  Governor  of  Georgia, 
a  fine  of  $2,500  was  imposed  on  the  Convict  Lessee  Company. 

The  Governor  was  General  John  B.  Gordon. 

The  name  of  the  negro  convict  was  Bill  Sturgis. 

Examples  like  these  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely  from 
Georgia  and  every  Southern  State. 

Another  astonishing  fact  is  related  by  Dr.  Albert  Bushnell 
Hart. 

"The  most  intelligent  white  people  admit  the  fact  that  they 
are  trying  to  keep  the  negro  down  because  otherwise  the  lowest 
white  men  will  marry  negro  women." 

Xow.  where  on  earth  did  Dr.  Hart  get  that  ? 

Does  not  Dr.  Hart  know  that  the  antipathy  between  the 
negro  and  the  poor  white  is,  and  always  has  been,  greater  than 
the  antipathy  between  the  negro  and  the  property-owning 
white  ? 

Does  not  Dr.  Hart  himself,  in  another  part  of  his  article, 
express  the  belief  that  a  dangerous  antagonism  exists  between 
the  poor  whites  and  the  negro  ? 

Does  Professor  Hart  believe  that  the  true  reason  why  the 
Southern  people  wish  to  maintain  white  supremacy  is  to  keep 


220 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


poor  whites  from  marrying  negro  women  ?  Does  he  not  realize 
that  he  makes  himself  a  laughing-stock  when  he  gives  his 
name  to  a  statement  of  that  kind ?  No  white  man,  rich  or 
poor,  wants  a  negro  woman  for  a  wife ! 

Dr.  Hart  may  put  that  clown  as  a  proposition  which  is  abso- 
lutely true. 

There  are  many  white  men,  unfortunately,  who  establish 
relations  of  concubinage  with  negro  women,  and  this  crime  is 
frequently  punished  in  the  Southern  courts;  but  where  is  the 
evidence  that  white  men  wish  to  take  negro  wives? 

If  that  inclination  is  so  strong,  so  ungovernable  as  to  become 
the  motive  of  the  South  in  maintaining  white  supremacy,  it 
should  be  capable  of  proof.  Now,  where  is  the  proof?  Pro- 
duce it,  Dr.  Hart ! 

The  simple  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  Dr.  Albert  Bushnell 
Hart  has  allowed  himself  to  be  stuffed  with  a  whole  lot  of  non- 
sense upon  a  subject  which  he  does  not  understand. 

Now  for  a  parting  quotation  from  this  precious  article  of 
Harvard's  professional  historian: 

"Good  people  (in  the  South)  rarely  make  much  distinction 
between  the  man  who  is  guilty  and  the  man  who  looks  like  a 
criminal ;  between  shooting  him  clown  in  the  street  or  burning 
him  at  the  stake;  between  burning  the  guilty  man  or  his 
innocent  wife ;  between  the  quiet  family  inferno  with  only  two 
or  three  hundred  spectators  and  a  first-class,  advertised 
auto-da-fe  with  special  trains,  and  the  children  of  the  public 
schools  in  the  foreground." 

There  you  have  it,  in  all  its  true  amplitude  and  animus ! 

"The  good  people"  of  the  South  do  not  strive,  according  to 
Dr.  Hart,  to  draw  the  line  of  distinction  between  the  man 
who  is  guilty  and  the  man  who  simply  looks  guilty.  They 
establish  no  real  distinction  between  the  guilty  man  and  his 
innocent  wife.  It  makes  no  difference  to  these  "good  people" 
whether  they  have  a  quiet  family  inferno,  with  two  or  three 
hundred  spectators,  or  the  first-class,  advertised  burning,  when 
special  trains  are  run  and  the  public-school  teachers  give  the 
children  a  recess  in  order  that  they  may  attend  the  exhibition. 

If  that  is  not  mere  partisanship,  frothing  at  the  mouth, 
what  is  it  ? 

It  certainly  cannot  be  seriously  taken  as  a  truthful  summing 
up  of  a  general  situation. 

An '  irresponsible  stump-speaker,  in  the  reckless  rush  of  a 
hot  political  campaign,  would  have  better  sense  than  to  deal  in 
hyperbole  in  that  furious  fashion. 

^  But  when  a  man  of  Dr.  Hart's  standing  publishes  stuff  like 
this  it  does  harm.   It  misleads  the  North  and  arouses  passion- 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


221 


ate  indignation  in  the  South. 

When  Dr.  Hart  does  work  of  that  wild  sort  he  is  no  longer 
a  historian:  he  is  simply  an  incendiary.  He  is  a  child  playing 
with  fire. 

If  I  were  to  apply  to  the  North  the  same  measure  which 
Professor  Hart  has  applied  to  the  South,  could  I  not  convict 
the  "good  people"  of  his  section,  as  he  has  convicted  "the  good 
people"  of  mine  ? 

Are  "the  good  people"  of  the  entire  Xorth  to  be  held  up  as 
utterly  lawless,  making  a  jest  of  "such  peccadillos  as  murder." 
because  of  the  late  doings  at  Wilmington,  Delaware,  or  at 
Springfield.  Ohio  \ 

Has  Indiana  had  no  lynchings:  has  Colorado  had  no  car- 
nival of  crime  ? 

James  Tillman,  of  South  Carolina,  "shot  down  in  the  street" 
a  mortal  political  foe  who  had.  beyond  all  question,  given  him 
great  provocation. 

I  do  not  say  that  James  Tillman  was  justified  in  his  act — I 
merely  say  that  he  had  provocation,  great  provocation. 

He  was  acquitted,  but  he  was  not  sent  to  Congress. 

He  left  the  court-room  a  broken,  chastened  man :  and  is  now 
leading  a  life  of  sobriety,  industry  and  rectitude. 

Not  many  years  ago.  on  a  Sunday  morning,  a  saloon-keeper 
and  his  son.  in  the  city  of  Boston.  Mass..  beat  down  a  drunken 
man  who  had  broken  a  window-pane  of  said  saloon — beat  him 
down  on  the  streets,  and  kicked  him  to  death  after  he  was 
down. 

Apparently  the  man's  sole  offense  was  that  he  had  broken  a 
pane  of  glass  and  refused  to  pay  for  it. 

The  saloon  was  open  in  violation  of  law. 

The  glass  was  broken  by  a  man  too  drunk  to  know  what  he 
was  doing. 

And  the  two  men  of  Boston  fell  upon  the  helpless,  drunken 
wretch,  and  kicked  him  to  death  in  the  streets. 

Was  Massachusetts  and  all  the  North  condemned  for  that  ? 
"What  became  of  the  homicides  ? 

In  the  House  of  Bepresentatives  of  the  United  States — for 
Boston.  Mass..  actually  sent  to  Congress  the  man  who  had 
helped  to  kick  another  man  to  death  in  the  streets ! 

His  name  ?    John  A.  Sullivan.   I  beg  pardon — it  is  : 

The  Honorable  John  A.  Sullivan. 

South  Carolina  is  far  behind  Massachusetts — she  has  not  yet 
sent  James  Tillman  to  Congress. 

In  the  name  of  the  Good  God  who  made  us  all — are  we  never 
to  hear  the  last  of  these  bitter  revilings  of  the  South  \ 

Are  we  never  to  reach  the  Era  of  Good  Feeling  for  which 


222  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


so  many  strong  men  have  toiled,  so  many  pure  women  have 
prayed  ? 

Will  the  blind  Apostles  of  Hate  never  "Let  us  have  Peace?" 

Shall  the  marplot  and  the  bigot  and  the  partisan  and  the 
Pharisee  forever  be  able  to  thwart  the  noble  efforts  of  nobler 
men? 

Shall  Ransy  Sniffles  always  succeed  in  embroiling  those  who 
want  to  be  friends  ? 

When  I  think  of  Abraham  Lincoln — magnanimous,  broad, 
far-seeing,  praising  the  Confederates  who  had  stormed  the 
heights  at  Gettysburg,  calling  upon  the  band  to  play  "Dixie" 
on  the  night  following  Lee's  surrender — and  then  contemplate 
this  narrow,  spiteful,  out-of-date  Professor  of  History  at 
Harvard,  I  realize  more  than  ever  how  much  the  South  lost 
when  a  madman  assassinated  the  statesman  who  had  her  blood 
in  his  veins,  sympathy  for  her  in  his  heart,  and  a  knowledge  of 
her  in  his  mind. 

In  vain  will  Congress  return  the  battle-flags  of  the  Lost 
Cause,  in  vain  will  the  McKinleys  and  the  Roosevelts  labor 
for  the  Era  of  Good  Feeling,  if  the  violent  partisans  of  the 
North,  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  almost  obsolete  fire-eaters 
of  the  South,  give  to  sectional  hatreds  a  new  lease  of  life. 


"  Take  the  Children  99 

Ix  France  the  Privileged  Classes  had  created  a  situation 
which  pleased  them  perfectly. 

A  fifth  of  the  soil  belonged  to  30.000  noble  families;  another 
fifth  belonged  to  the  clergy:  another  fifth  belonged  to  the 
King  and  city  governments:  the  remaining  two-fifth-  belonged 
to  all  the  other  people,  middle  class  and  peasants. 

To  the  support  of  the  Government  the  clergy  contributed 
nothing  except  as  a  free  gift :  the  nobility  contributed  pretty 
much  what  they  pleased,  and  they  did  not  please  to  contribute 
a  great  deal. 

The  King's  family  -pent  S55.000.000  per  year.  Two  brothers 
of  the  king  -pent  $2,000,000;  and.  to  pay  the  debts  of  one 
princely  bankrupt.  King  Louis  XVI.  took  S3.000.000  out  of 
the  public  fund-. 

Two  hundred  and  ninety-five  cooks  served  in  the  King's 
kitchen.  Nearly  two  thousand  horses  stood  in  his  stables.  A 
squad  of  soldiers  escorted  his  dinner  to  the  table.  A  magnifi- 
cent band  furnished  music  while  he  ate.  and  a  dozen  gallant 
lords,  paid  for  the  service,  helped  him  to  undress  and  get  to 
bed  when  the  arduuous  do-nothing  of  the  day  had  been 
finished. 

Some  30,000,000  Frenchmen  did  not  enter  into  this  world 
of  privilege.  The  merchant,  the  lawyer,  the  doctor,  the 
manufacturer,  the  farmer,  the  laborer — all  these  stood  outside 
the  pearly  gates,  catching  only  a  glimpse  of  the  radiance 
within,  hearing  only,  as  from  a  distance,  the  music  of  this 
Eden,  created  by  class  legislation. 

The  peasant  neither  owned  his  land  absolutely  nor  himself 
absolutely.  Over  him  and  his  was  suspended  the  heavy  sword 
of  class  privilege. 

The  no  We  hunter  of  game,  who  enjoyed  the  exclusive  privi- 
lege of  killing  game,  might  trample  down  his  grain  with  the 
utmost  concern,  at  whatever  time  the  pleasure  of  the  uoble 
huntsman  dictated.  Mr.  Pea-ant  was  not  allowed  to  protect 
his  fields  and  crops  by  putting  up  any  kind  of  inclo-ure. 

Mr.  Peasant  must  not  kill  the  wild  boar  or  the  antlered  stag, 
even  though  those  noble  beasts,  reserved  for  noble  huntsmen, 
were  destroying  the  crop  upon  which  he  and  hi-  family  were 
dependent  for  a  living. 

He  could  not.  under  any  conditions  whatsoever,  destroy  the 
pigeons  which  came  sweeping  down  upon  his  grain,  nor  must 
he.  during  certain  seasons,  manure  his  crop  or  hoe  out  the 


224  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

grass,  lest  he  injure  the  flavor  of  the  young  partridges,  and 
deprive  them  of  the  shelter  necessary  for  their  comfort  and 
growth. 

He  could  not  press  his  grapes  save  at  the  nobleman's  wine- 
press, nor  grind  his  wheat  save  at  the  nobleman's  mill,  nor 
bake  his  bread  elsewhere  than  in  the  nobleman's  oven. 

These  monopolies  were  peculiar  to  the  lord,  and  the  peasant 
must  pay  toll  lest  the  lord's  revenues  decrease. 

The  peasant  could  not  vote,  had  really  no  civic  existence, 
was  not  considered  in  the  government  of  the  country;  could 
be  made  to  work,  whether  he  wished  to  do  so  or  not,  for  the 
noble  and  the  King.  His  horses  could  be  taken  from  the 
cart,  or  from  the  plow,  if  his  superiors  demanded  it.  Neither 
for  his  labor  nor  his  horse  was  he  paid.  He  could  not  put 
salt  into  his  victuals  without  paying  a  high  price  for  it,  and 
he  was  not  allowed  to  eat  his  victuals  unsalted.  The  law  com- 
pelled him  to  buy  a  certain  portion  of  salt  every  year  at  an 
exorbitant  price. 

The  church  took  from  him  one-tenth  of  all  he  made,  besides 
which  he  must  pay  fees  for  christenings,  marriages,  burials 
and  pardons  for  sins — to  say  nothing  of  prayers  in  behalf  of 
the  living,  the  dying  and  the  dead.  The  feudal  lord  took  from 
him  annually  a  certain  part  of  all  he  made. 

The  French  historian  Taine  says  that  in  some  portions  of 
France  the  peasant  paid  in  feudal  dues,  church  tithes  and 
royal  taxes  more  than  three-fourths  of  all  that  he  made.  In 
other  portions  of  France  the  entire  net  produce  of  the  soil 
went  to  the  Church  and  State,  and  so  great  was  the  intolerable 
burden  that  the  peasants  quit  in  despair,  left  the  land  to 
become  a  desert  waste,  and  flocked  to  the  cities  to  swell  the 
army  of  The  Wretched. 

To  throw  off  the  shackles  of  this  frightful  system  of  mis- 
government  the  French  Revolutionist  roused  the  people. 

At  first  Great  Britain  rejoiced  in  the  movement  which 
Lafayette,  Mirabeau,  Necker,  Sieyes  and  Camille  Desmoulins 
inaugurated.  These  early  revolutionists  declared  their  pur- 
pose to  set  up  a  constitutional  government  in  France  such  as 
Great  Britain  enjoyed,  but  when  these  moderate  and  consti- 
tutional reformers  were  thrown  aside  by  the  radical  demo- 
crats who  were  determined  to  establish  a  republic — when  this 
democracy  had  confiscated  the  lands  held  by  the  Church,  had 
issued  paper  money  and  had  taken  for  national  uses  the  aban- 
doned estates  of  the  immigrant  nobles,  the  ruling  powers  of 
Church  and  State  in  Great  Britain  became  greatly  alarmed, 
and  it  was  resolved  that  war  to  the  death  should  be  waged 
against  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution. 

Unless  this  were  done,  democracy  might  assert  itself  in 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


225 


Great  Britain,  and  those  things  which  had  been  taken  from 
the  people  under  forms  of  law  might  be  restored  in  the  same 
way  to  the  original  owners.  Therefore  William  Pitt.  Prime 
Minister  and  actual  ruler  of  Great  Britain,  declared  war  upon 
France,  blockaded  her  coasts,  organized  European  kings  into 
confederacies  against  her.  and  for  more  than  a  dozen  dreadful 
years  poured  armed  legions  upon  her. 

During  this  era  of  ''blood  of  iron."  men  were  torn  from 
peaceful  pursuits  throughout  Great  Britain,  to  supply  the  navy 
and  the  army  with  food  for  powder. 

As  a  necessary  consequence,  the  demand  for  labor  was 
greater  than  the  supply:  and  as  England  depends  especially 
upon  her  manufactures,  it  was  there  that  the  scarcity  of  labor 
was  most  injuriously  felt. 

It  is  said  that  a  deputation  representing  the  manufacturers 
waited  upon  the  Prime  Minister  and  laid  their  grievances 
before  him,  asking  the  question,  "What  must  we  do?" 

Mr.  Pitt  is  reported  to  have  answered.  "Take  the  Children/' 

This  story  may  not  be  true,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  it  represented 
precisely  the  emergency,  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
emergency  was  met.  It  also  represents  correctly  the  attitude 
of  Mr.  Pitt  as  defined  in  his  speeches  in  Parliament. 

A  cruel,  unjustifiable  war  had  devoured  the  laborer  who 
should  have  been  at  his  task.  The  laws  had  dragged  him  into 
the  army  and  into  the  navy  whether  he  wished  to  go  or  not. 
Press-gangs  had  prowled  about  the  lanes  and  alleys  clutching 
at  every  poor  man  who  happened  to  be  sound  of  limb,  and  had 
carried  him  off  by  force  into  a  battleship,  where  he  might  be 
kept  until  the  bride  whom  he  had  left  at  the  church  door  had 
counted  him  as  dead,  or  until  the  family  which  he  had  left 
contented  and  happy,  had  been  lost  to  the  knowledge  of  men. 

Having  taken  the  father,  the  same  remorseless  class-greed 
demanded  the  child,  and  took  it. 

Upon  the  altar  of  English  lust  for  money  has  been  sacrificed 
more  helpless  men.  women  and  children  than  ever  fell  before 
the  ruthless  hordes  of  Tamerlane  or  Attila. 

"Within  carefully  guarded  limits,  child-labor  is  no  more  to 
be  objected  to  in  manufactures  than  in  agriculture,  but  in  the 
early  days  of  the  factory  system  these  limits  were  utterly  dis- 
regarded. 

"In  the  infancy  of  the  system  it  became  the  custom  of  the 
master  manufacturer  to  contract  with  the  managers  of  work- 
houses throughout  England  and  of  the  charities  of  Scotland, 
to  send  their  young  children  to  the  factories  of  the  great  towns. 
Many  thousands  of  children  between  the  ages  of  six  and  ten 
were  thus  sent,  absolutely  uneared  for  and  unprotected,  and 
left  to  the  complete  disposal  of  masters  who  often  had  not  a 


226  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


single  thought  except  speedily  to  amass  a  fortune,  and  who 
knew  that  if  the  first  supply  of  infant  labor  were  used  up  there 
was  still  much  more  to  be  obtained. 

"Thousands  of  children  at  this  early  age  might  be  found 
working  in  the  factories  of  England  and  Scotland,  usually 
I   from  twelve  to  fourteen,  sometimes  even  fifteen  and  sixteen 
hours  a  day,  not  unfrequently  during  the  greater  part  of  the 
I  night.    Destitute  or  drunken  or  unnatural  parents  made  it  a 
\  regular  system  to  raise  money  by  hiring  out  their  children 
•  from  six,  sometimes  from  five,  years  old,  by  written  contracts 
\  and  for  long  periods.    In  one  case  brought  before  Parliament 
'  a  gang  of  these  children  was  put  up  for  sale  among  a  bank- 
i  rupt's  effects,  and  publicly  advertised  as  part  of  the  property. 
In  another  an  agreement  was  disclosed  between  a  London 
parish   and  a  Lancashire  manufacturer  in  which  it  was 
stipulated  that  with  every  twenty  sound  children  one  idiot 
should  be  taken." 

"Even  as  late  as  1840,  when  the  most  important  manu- 
factures had  been  regulated  by  law,  Lord  Ashley  was  able  to 
show  that  boys  employed  in  the  carpet  manufacture  at  Kidder- 
minister  were  called  up  at  three  and  four  in  the  morning,  and 
kept  working  sixteen  or  eighteen  hours:  that  children  five 
years  old  were  engaged  in  the  unhealthy  trade  of  pin-making, 
and  were  kept  at  work  from  six  in  the  morning  to  eight  at 
night."    (Lecky,  "England  in  Eighteenth  Century.") 

In  the  coal  mines  and  in  the  salt  mines  men,  women  and 
children  were  literally  beasts  of  burden — were  chattels,  and 
when  the  mines  were  sold,  the  human  machines  passed  from 
one  owner  to  another,  just  as  the  mechanical  apparatus  passed. 

There  were  women  who  in  these  coal  mines,  where  the 
tunnels  were  too  narrow  to  allow  them  to  stand  upright,  had 
to  crawl  back  and  forward  on  their  hands  and  knees  for  four- 
teen to  sixteen  hours  a  day,  drawing  after  them  the  truucks 
loaded  with  coal. 

These  trucks  were  securely  fastened  to  the  woman  by  means 
of  a  chain  which  passed  between  her  legs  and  was  attached  to 
a  belt  strappepd  round  her  waist.  The  woman  seldom  wore 
any  clothes  except  an  old  pair  of  trousers  made  of  sacking. 

"Little  children  were  forced  to  work  underground  from 
year  to  year.  Deep  in  the  gloom  of  a  night  which  had  neither 
moonlight  nor  stars ;  rarely  ever  seeing  the  face  of  nature  and 
of  day — lost  to  God's  glory  of  sunlight,  shady  woods,  silvery 
waters — lost  to  intelligence,  happiness,  enjoyment,  reduced  to 
the  helpless  condition  of  beasts  of  burden." 
•  What  was  true  of  the  mines  was  also  true  of  the  factories. 
Men,  women  and  children  were  forced  to  work  for  a  number 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  227 


of  hours  absolutely  inconsistent  with  physical  and  moral 
development. 

In  the  year  1833  Lord  Ashley  led  in  the  noble  effort  to 
redeem  the  children  from  the  clutches  of  unscrupulous  com- 
mercialism, and  to  lighten  the  burden  of  men  and  women  by 
regulating  the  hours  of  labor  and  the  conditions  of  service. 

After  a  most  stubborn  resistance,  in  which  the  corporations 
urged  against  the  reform  every  reason  which  we  hear  urged 
in  our  day,  England  did  herself  the  immense  credit  of  check- 
ing the  tyranny  of  those  who  were  grinding  the  lives  out  of  the 
poor  in  order  that  the  rich  should  become  richer. 

In  this  country  the  cry  of  commercialism  is  the  same  as  that 
which  in  Great  Britain  said,  "Take  the  children." 

Corporations  want  cheap  labor.  If  they  can't  get  the  adult, 
they  take  the  child. 

In  the  Southern  States  the  tendenccy  to  employ  children 
has  had  alarming  development.  In  1880  the  total  number 
of  cotton  factory  employees  was  16,740.  Of  these,  4.090  were 
children  under  sixteen  years  of  age.  In  the  year  1900  the  total 
number  of  employees  had  increased  to  97,559.  Of  these, 
24,459  were  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age. 

In  the  States  outside  of  the  South  there  were,  in  1880, 
115,803  employees  in  the  cotton  factories.  Of  this  number, 
24,243  were  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age.  In  the  year 
1900  the  total  number  of  cotton  factory  employees  in  States 
outside  of  the  South  was  205,302.  Of  these,  only  15,796  were 
children  under  sixteen  years  of  age. 

In  other  words,  within  the  Southern  States  the  children 
under  sixteen  years  of  age  constitute  now,  as  they  did  twenty 
years  ago,  25  per  cent,  of  all  the  operatives  employed :  whereas, 
in  the  States  outside  the  South  the  children  under  sixteen 
number  less  than  8  per  cent,  of  all  those  employed.  There- 
fore the  situation  which  was  justly  considered  so  bad  in  Great 
Britain  that  it  was  reformed  seventy  years  ago,  and  which 
has  been  reformed  in  most  of  the  States  outside  of  the  South, 
is  three  times  worse  in  the  South  than  it  is  in  any  other  por- 
tion of  the  Union,  and  is  just  as  bad  now  as  it  was  twenty 
years  ago. 

In  The  Tradesman,  of  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  August  15,  1902, 
the  statement  is  made  that  the  number  of  children  under  six- 
teen years  of  age  now  at  work  in  the  Southern  mills  approxi- 
mated 50,000. 

The  50,000  little  ones  who  troop  to  the  mill  every  morning, 
breathe  the  steam-heated,  dust-laden,  germ-infected  atmos- 
phere of  the  close  rooms  throughout  the  entire  day,  who  light, 
with  lanterns,  their  way  home  across  the  fields  when  darkness 
has  fallen,  are  white  children.  During  the  same  hours  that 

9— Sketches 


228  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


these  white  boys  and  girls  are  finding  their  way  to  the  factory 
where  their  energy  and  strength  is  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice  to 
mammon,  50,000  black  children  are  singing  merrily  on  their 
way  to  school,  where  they  are  gaining  what  the  white  children 
are  losing. 

Glance  forward  twenty  years  and  ask  yourselves  what  will 
be  the  relative  positions  of  the  50,000  white  children  and  the 
50,000  black  children.  It  will  be  a  miracle  if  most  of  those 
white  children  are  not  either  in  their  graves,  or  in  the  hos- 
pitals, or  in  the  slums,  or  in  the  prisons,  while  the  50,000  black 
children  will  be  holding  clerkships  in  some  department  of  the 
Federal  Government. 

The  kind  of  civilization  which  we  are  going  to  have  in  the 
future  is  being  determined  now.  Race  development  and  pro- 
gress cannot  be  extemporized  or  bought  ready-made.  It  is  a 
matter  of  preparing  the  soil,  planting  the  seed,  cultivating 
the  crop. 

We  shall  reap  as  we  shall  have  sown.  „ 
The  most  profoundly  disgusting  feature  of  the  Southern 
political  situation  today  is  that  the  Democratic  bosses  who 
control  our  State  legislatures,  will  not  allow  us  to  give  our 
white  children  as  good  treatment  as  the  negro  children  are 
getting. 

Almost  universally  the  Southern  mills  are  controlled  by 
Northern  capitalists;  but  it  is  the  Southern  politician,  office- 
holder, editor  or  stockholder  who  rushes  to  the  legislature 
saying  that  child  slavery  must  continue  because  it  is  good  for 
the  child. 

These  Northern  capitalists  who  own  Southern  mills  are,  to 
a  large  extent,  Republicans  in  politics.  The  unprincipled 
Southern  men  who  put  up  a  plea  in  behalf  of  child  slavery  are 
almost  exclusively  Democratic. 

Just  as  J.  P.  Morgan,  the  Republican  railroad  king,  used 
the  Southern  Democratic  machine  to  rob  the  people  through 
his  railroads,  so  the  Northern  Republican  millowner  uses  the 
Southern  Democratic  politician  to  rivet  upon  the  Southern 
white  child  the  chains  of  commercial  serfdom,  ruinous  to  the 
child  and  ominous  to  the  future  of  the  white  race  in  the  South. 

It  was  class-greed  which  first  raised  the  cry,  "Take  the 
children."  It  is  class-greed  which  now  says,  "Take  the 
children." 


"Where  Am  I  At?" 


A  lie  which  is  popular  has  more  lives  than  a  cat.  It  travels 
with  a  speed  which  defies  competition.  Trample  it  out  in  one 
place  and  it  springs  up  in  another. 

Politicians  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  a  good  campaign 
lie  is  more  serviceable  than  the  truth.  Every  student  of  history 
knows  that  there  is  no  death  for  the  lie  which  has  once  tickled 
the  public  ear. 

Cambronne.  the  commander  of  the  Old  Guard  at  Waterloo, 
did  not  say  "The  Guard  dies:  it  does  not  surrender."  Welling- 
ton did  not  cry  out,  "Up,  Guards,  and  at  them!" 

The  English  at  the  battle  of  Fontenoy  did  not  say,  "Gentle- 
men of  the  French  Guard,  will  you  please  fire  first?*'  Xor  did 
the  Comte  d'Auteroche  reply.  "Gentlemen,  we  never  fire  first." 

General  Taylor  did  not  exclaim,  at  the  crisis  of  the  battle 
of  Beuna  Vista.  "A  little  more  grape.  Captain  Bragg!" 

Yet  all  of  these  alleged  statements  are  so  popular  that  they 
are  immortal;  and  the  man  who  would  undertake  to  root  out 
their  existence  from  historical,  rhetorical  and  oratorical  litera- 
ture had  better  swap  his  job  for  that  of  Dame  Partington, 
who  tried  to  sweep  back  the  Atlantic  Ocean  with  her  broom. 

In  like  manner  the  phrase.  "Where  am  I  at?"  clings 
imperishably  to  the  man  who  did  not  use  it.  and  is  never 
attributed  to  him  who  did. 

The  New  Orleans  Picayune  is  supposed  to  be  edited  by  men 
of  average  information,  who  ought  to  have  some  recollection 
of  public  occurrences  within  the  last  few  years,  and  yet  the 
Picayune  repeats  the  old.  old  story  that  I  was  the  Congressman 
who.  in  the  course  of  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
asked  the  famous  question.  "Where  am  I  at?" 

The  official  record  of  Congress  showed  at  the  time,  and  will 
show  now.  that  the  expression  was  used  by  the  Hon.  Jas.  E. 
Cobb,  of  Alabama,  during  the  course  of  a  speech  on  a  con- 
tested election  case  from  New  York,  the  Hon.  Buck  Kilgore, 
of  Texas,  being  in  the  Chair. 

I  took  no  part  in  the  debate  at  all.  I  was  simply  an  amused 
listener  to  the  discourse  of  the  gentleman  from  Alabama.  I 
was  one  of  those  who  joined  in  the  merriment  when  Mr.  Cobb, 
having  been  momentarily  drawn  off  from  the  tangled  thread 
of  his  discourse  by  questions  put  to  him  right  and  left,  turned 
to  the  occupant  of  the  chair  and  inquired.  "Mr.  Chairman, 
where  was  I  at  in  my  argument?"  To  which  the  jovial  Kil- 
gore replied.  "The  Chair  does  not  regard  that  as  a  parlia- 
mentary inquiry." 


230  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Soon  after  this  I  compiled  and  published  a  "Campaign 
Book"  for  the  use  of  the  People's  Party,  and  in  a  chapter 
devoted  to  a  general  exposure  of  Congressional  conditions 
referred  to  Mr.  Cobb,  his  evident  tipsy  condition,  and  his  now 
celebrated  phrase,  "Where  was  I  at?" 

When  the  book  was  published  it  caused  a  general  stir  among 
Congressmen. 

Little  Joe  Wheeler,  of  Alabama,  was  especially  wroth.  He 
read  the  passage  alluded  to  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  and 
denounced  me  as  a  liar.  Amid  the  most  riotous  scene  of  dis- 
order I  rose  in  my  place,  reasserted  the  truth  of  the  state- 
ments contained  in  the  book. 

A  committee  of  investigation  was  appointed,  the  intent 
being  to  expel  me  from  the  House.  I  produced  the  original 
stenographic  notes,  swore  the  stenographer  and  proved  the 
accuracy  of  my  published  statement.  Not  only  that,  I  proved 
it  by  reporters  and  by  members  of  the  House.  Hon.  W.  C. 
Oates,  the  colleague  of  both  Mr.  Cobb  and  General  Wheeler, 
was  manly  enough  to  testify  before  the  investigation  com- 
mitteee  that  he  became  convinced  that  Mr.  Cobb  was  in  no  con- 
dition to  continue  his  speech,  and  that  he  went  to  his  colleague 
and  persuaded  him  to  take  a  seat. 

Mr.  Cobb,  of  Alabama,  was  an  excellent  gentleman.  The 
personal  relations  between  himself  and  me  were  friendly. 

I  did  not  personate  him.  It  was  never  my  intention  to 
expose  him. 

No  name  was  given  in  my  Campaign  Book.  No  name  was 
given  in  my  reply  to  General  Wheeler  on  the  floor  of  the 
House.  Indeed,  when  Hon.  Joseph  W.  Bailey,  of  Texas,  came 
to  me  and  urged  me  to  keep  the  name  of  Mr.  Cobb  from  being 
exposed,  I  readily  promised  to  do  so.  But  when  the  investiga- 
tion committee  began  its  sessions  and  the  scope  of  the  investi- 
gation widened,  Mr.  Cobb  became  convinced  that  there  was 
no  further  hope  of  keeping  the  secret;  therefore  he  himself 
came  before  the  committee,  and  thus  he  was  for  the  first  time 
identified  as  the  Congressman  who  had  beeen  referred  to  as 
the  author  of  the  phrase,  "Where  am  I  at?" 

A  funny  thing  happened  while  the  "investigation"  was  in 
progress. 

Little  Joe  Wheeler  called  me  into  his  committee-room  and 
suggested  that  if  I  would  apologize  to  the  House  he  thought 
Congress  would  agree  to  "drop  it." 

Having  told  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  having  proved  it,  I 
was  not  able  to  see  the  wisdom  of  the  General's  advice. 


The  Man  and  the  Land 


Certain  good  friends  of  mine  were  shocked,  a  few  months 
ago.  when  they  learned  that  I  was  one  of  those  monsters  who 
believe  in  the  private  ownership  of  land. 

Some  of  them  deplored  my  ignorance,  and  urged  me  to  go 
straightway  and  read  ''Progress  and  Poverty."  Well,  I  had 
read  Henry  George's  book  soon  after  its  publication,  and  had 
once  had  the  precious  advantage  of  serving  a  term  in  Con- 
gress with  the  great  Tom  Johnson:  yet  I  never  had  been  able 
to  see  the  distinction,  in  principle,  between  the  private  owner- 
ship of  a  cow  and  the  private  ownership  of  a  cow-lot. 

Certain  other  friends  made  the  point  on  me  that  I  did  not 
understand  Count  Tolstoy.  That  is  possible.  In  his  various 
ramblings  into  various  speculative  matters.  Tolstoy,  like  our 
own  Emerson,  gets  lost,  sometimes,  in  mazes  of  his  own  mak- 
ing: and  he  uses  language  which  may  delight  professional 
commentators,  but  which  is  sorely  vexatious  to  an  average 
citizen  who  really  wants  to  know  what  the  philosophers  are 
driving  at. 

Tolstoy  is  careful  to  avoid  History.  The  flood  of  light 
which  might  be  thrown  upon  the  land  question  by  the  records 
of  the  human  race  is  shut  out  altogether. 

And  this  is  the  weak  spot  in  the  armor  of  every  champion 
who  enters  the  lists  against  the  Private  Ownership  of  Land. 
If  History  makes  any  one  thing  plain,  it  is  that  a  Civilization 
was  never  able  to  develop  itself  on  any  other  basis  than  that  of 
Private  Ownership. 

Like  other  champions  of  his  theory,  Tolstoy  forgets  the 
elemental  traits  of  Human  Nature.  He  forgets  how  unequal 
we  are  by  Xature:  how  we  differ,  in  character,  capacity,  taste 
and  purpose:  how  few  there  are  who  will  labor  for  the  ''good 
of  all."  and  how  universal  is  the  rule  that  each  man  labors, 
first  of  all.  for  himself. 

He  forgets  that  every  beast  of  the  field  has  its  prototype 
in  some  member  of  the  human  family:  he  forgets  that  the 
man-tiger  is  now  more  numerous  than  the  four-footed  sort : 
that  the  man-fox  is  more  cunning  than  his  wild  brother;  that 
the  man-wolf  hunts  with  every  human  herd:  that  the  man- 
sloth  is  marked  by  nature  with  her  own  indelible  brand:  that 
some  men  are  born  timid  as  the  deer  are:  that  some  are  born 
without  fear  as  the  lion  is:  that  the  human  hog  grunts  and 
gorges,  and  makes  himself  a  nauseating  nuisance,  on  the 
streets,  in  hotels,  in  the  Pullman  cars — in  fact  everywhere, 
but  most  of  all  where  people  have  to  eat  and  sleep. 


232  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

This  is  the  fundamental  error  which  doctrinaires  are  prone 
to  make.  They  forget  what  Human  Nature  actually  is,  always 
has  been,  and  perhaps,  always  will  be. 

They  argue  about  ideal  conditions,  unmindful  of  the  fact 
that  ideal  conditions  require  ideal  men — and  that  we  haven't 
got  the  ideal  men. 

Every  society,  every  State,  must  from  necessity  be  made  up 
of  the  Good,  the  Bad,  and  the  Indifferent  and  the  law-makers 
of  that  society,  that  State,  will  from  necessity  be  compelled 
to  frame  laws  suited  to  that  community.  Hence,  the  laws  will 
not  be  absolutely  the  best,  considering  the  question  as  an 
abstract  question,  but  they  will  be  the  best  which  that  com- 
munity is  capable  of  receiving. 

All  legislation,  like  all  Society,  is  a  compromise. 

In  a  state  of  Nature  I  would  be  absolutely  free.  But  I 
would  be  alone.  To  protect  myself  in  person,  property  or 
family,  I  would  have  to  rely  upon  my  individual  arm.  My 
absolute  freedom  would  be  an  absolute  isolation  and  a  relative 
helplessness. 

I  would  find  that  I  could  not  endure  such  a  life.  I  would 
therefore  seek  companionship  among  other  men  who  felt  the 
same  needs  that  I  felt,  and  we  would  come  together  for  the 
"good  of  all."  One  hundred  families  coming  together  in  this 
way  form  the  nucleus  of  Society,  of  the  State.  Each  man  gives 
up  a  portion  of  his  individual  freedom  when  he  enters  this 
union  of  families  which  forms  such  a  nucleus. 

Why  does  he  surrender  a  portion  of  his  wild,  natural, 
individual  freedom?  Why  does  he  agree  to  be  bound  by  the 
will  of  the  Community  instead  of  his  own  will  ?  Why  does  he 
consent  to  be  governed  by  the  public  when  he  had  previously 
been  his  own  ruler  ?  He  does  it  because  it  is  to  his  interest  to 
do  it.  He  finds  that,  while  he  has  surrendered  much,  he  has 
gained  more.  The  Community  throws  around  him  the  pro- 
tection of  a  hundred  strong  arms  where  previously  he  had 
but  his  own. 

The  Community,  in  a  hundred  ways,  ministers  to  his  wants, 
his  weaknesses,  his  desires,  his  prosperity. 

In  other  words,  the  Community  gives  more  than  it  took. 

Association  which  improves  the  Community  tends  to  improve 
each  member  thus  associated;  and  from  this  association  come 
all  those  blessings  which  we  call  Civilization. 

Resolve  the  Association  back  into  its  elements;  let  each 
individual  separate  from  the  mass ;  let  each  one  say,  "I'm  my 
own  man," — and  what  becomes  of  Civilization? 

It  perishes,  of  course. 

Now  where  will  Tolstoy  find  the  basis  of  Society  in  Nature  ? 
In  the  human  instinct  for  getting-together.    And  that 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


233 


instinct  seems  to  grow  out  of  our  hopes,  and  our  fears,  our 
profound  belief  that  we  need  our  fellow-man.  and  that  we  are 
not  strong  enough  to  stand  alone,  no  matter  how  much  we 
would  like  to  do  so. 

Deep  down  in  our  heart  you  will  find  the  primeval,  natural 
craving  for  independence,  individuality,  separate  living, 
separate  doing.  With  the  great  common  mass  of  humanity 
this  tendency  has  been  weakened  by  disuse  until  it  is  not  an 
active  principle.  It  is  like  a  muscle  which  has  lost  its  strength 
from  inaction.  Hence,  the  common  man  goes  with  the  herd, 
just  as  a  flock  of  sheep  follows  the  bell-wether. 

Society,  then  is  a  matter  of  conviction :  Nature  did  not 
frame  it. 

Xor  does  Nature  impose  upon  us  the  relation  of  Husband 
and  Wife. 

Why  do  we  adopt  the  present  marriage  system,  which  dirTers 
m  so  many  respects  from  Nature,  and  from  former  practices 
of  the  human  race  \ 

Simply  because  we  believe  it  to  be  an  improvement.  We 
know  it  is  better  than  the  promiscuous  intercourse  of  the  sexes: 
we  believe  it  to  be  better  than  Polygamy:  we  hope  that  it  will 
some  clay  be  a  more  radiant  success  than  the  Divorce  Courts 
would  seem  to  indicate. 

Xow  as  to  the  land. 

Undoubtedly,  the  earth  was  given  to  the  human  family  as  a 
home  for  the  family.  Undoubtedly.  Xature  teaches  that  the 
earth  belongs  in  common  to  the  entire  human  race. 

Thus  it  was  in  the  beginning.  But.  just  as  the  wild  horse 
became  the  property  of  the  bold  tribesman  who  caught  it  and 
tamed  it:  just  as  the  natural  fruit  of  the  forest  belonged  to 
him  who  gathered  it:  just  as  the  cave  or  hollow  tree  became 
the  dwelling  of  the  first  occupant,  so  the  well  in  the  thirsty 
plain  became  the  property  of  him  that  had  dug  down  to  the 
waters :  and  the  pasturage  which  one  had  taken  up  might  not 
be  taken  away  from  him  by  another. 

Mine  was  the  dark  hut  which  my  labor  had  built :  mine  was 
the  canoe  which  my  hand-  had  hollowed  out :  mine  the  bow 
and  arrows  which  I  had  fashioned:  mine  the  herds  and  flock-, 
the  goats  and  asses  which  I  had  tamed  and  reared  and  cared 
for- till  they  had  multiplied. 

Should  the  idler,  or  the  thief  of  the  tribe,  take  from  me  that 
which  my  labor  had  produced  \  Must  my  canoe  belong  to  the 
whole  tribe  I  Must  my  garment  which  I  had  made  out  of  the 
skins  of  the  wild  beast  belong  to  the  sloth  who  loafed  in  the 
tent  while  I  risked  my  life  in  the  woods? 

Nature  said.  Xo ! 


234  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Nature,  speaking  through  elemental  instinct  said:  "That 
which  your  labor  made  is  yours." 

Yours  the  hut,  yours  the  canoe,  yours  the  garment  of  skins, 
yours  the  bow  and  arrows — and  that  was  the  beginning  of 
Private  Property  in  Personalty. 

But  look  again  at  the  ways  of  Nature  and  of  the  tribe. 

Pasturage  failed  after  awhile ;  natural  fruits  were  no  longer 
sufficient  to  sustain  life;  game  disappeared  from  the  forest; 
fish  grew  scarce  in  the  streams.  Something  had  to  be  done  to 
make  good  the  shortage.  The  soil  was  there,  suggesting  culti- 
vation. The  products  of  Nature  must  be  supplemented  by 
human  industry.  But  before  the  soil  could  be  cultivated,  the 
trees  had  to  be  cut  away;  cattle  and  wild  beasts  had  to  be 
fenced  out;  the  virgin  earth  had  to  be  made  the  bride  of  toil 
before  the  fruitful  seed  would  bring  forth  harvests. 

Now  who  was  to  do  the  work  ? 

The  Idler  wouldn't;  the  Feeble  couldn't;  the  Hunter  didn't; 
the  strong,  clear-headed  Laborer  made  the  farm. 

Those  who  assail  private  ownership  of  land  say  that  "the 
man  who  makes  a  farm  doesn't  make  it  in  the  sense  that  one 
makes  a  basket  or  a  chair."  They  see  clearly  that,  if  they  admit 
that  the  pioneer  who  goes  into  the  wilderness  or  the  swamps 
and  creates  a  farm,  is  to  be  put  on  the  same  footing  as  the  man 
who  goes  into  the  woods,  gets  material  and  makes  a  canoe,  or 
a  chair  or  a  basket,  it  is  "farewell  world"  to  their  theory  about 
the  land.  Therefore  they  say  that  the  farm  was  already  there, 
waiting  for  the  farmer.  All  the  farmer  had  to  do  was  to  go 
there  and  tickle  the  soil  with  a  hoe,  and  it  laughed  with  the 
harvest. 

How  very  absurd !  You  might  just  as  well  say  that  the 
willows  that  bent  over  the  waters  of  the  brook  were  baskets 
waiting  for  the  tardy  basketmaker  to  come  and  get  them. 
You  might  just  as  well  say  that  the  hide  on  the  cow's  back  was 
a  pair  of  ladies'  shoes  waiting  for  the  lady  to  come  and  fit 
them  to  her  dainty  feet. 

Must  we  get  rid  of  our  common  sense,  our  practical  knowl- 
edge, before  we  can  argue  a  case  of  this  sort?  Do  not  these 
doctrinaries  know  that  they  are  denying  physical  facts,  plain 
everyday  experience,  when  they  say  that  a  piece  of  wild  land 
in  the  desert,  in  the  swamps,  on  the  mountain  side,  or  in  the 
woody  wilderness  is  a  farm  waiting  for  the  farmer?  Sheer 
nonsense  never  went  further.  But  they  are  compelled  to  this 
extent  because  of  the  necessities  of  their  case.  They  see  at 
once  that  if  ever  they  admit  my  position  that  the  laborer  takes 
raw  materials  with  which  nature  supplies  him,  and  out  of  those 
raw  materials  creates  something  that  did  not  exist  before,  then 
the  laborer  is  entitled  to  that  which  his  labor  creates. 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


235 


Now,  do  you  mean  to  tell  me.  that  for  thousands  of  years 
there  were  farms  waiting  the  pioneers  here  in  North  America  \ 
Consider  for  a  moment  what  the  Xew  England  or  the  South- 
ern, or  the  Western  farmer  had  to  do  before  he  had  made  a 
farm.  He  had  to  go  into  the  woods  with  an  axe  in  one  hand 
and  a  rifle  in  the  other.  Very  frequently  he  was  shot  down 
before  he  could  make  his  farm,  just  as  Abraham  Lincoln's 
grandfather  was  killed.  Very  frequently  he  died  from  the 
fever  engendered  in  the  woods  before  he  had  made  his  farm, 
just  as  Andrew  Jackson's  father  did.  in  the  effort  to  make  a 
farm  in  the  wilderness  of  North  Carolina.  Supposing  the 
farmer  was  able  to  snatch  up  his  gun  quick  enough  to  shoot, 
the  Indian  who  was  trying  to  shoot  him.  and  supposing  that 
his  constitution  was  strong  enough  to  resist  the  malarial 
atmosphere  in  which  he  had  to  labor  while  creating  that  farm, 
what  was  the  process  through  which  he  went  in  making  that 
farm  ?  He  had  to  cut  off  an  enormous  growth  of  timber.  He 
had  to  grub  up  stumps  and  roots.  He  had  to  plow  and  cross- 
plow  the  soil  until  it  had  become  a  seed  bed.  He  had  to 
inclose  the  farm  to  keep  out  the  wild  animals  which  would 
have  devoured  his  crop.  If  in  a  rocky  section,  he  had  to 
remove  the  stones  which  encumbered  the  ground.  If  in  a 
damp,  swampy  section,  he  had  to  exercise  skill,  as  well  as 
labor,  in  draining  the  soil.  After  four  or  five  years,  the  laborer 
had  made  a  farm — something  as  different  from  the  wild  land 
which  he  found  in  the  woods  as  the  pine  tree  is  from  the 
lumber  which  lies  upon  the  lumber-yard;  as  different  as  the 
wool  on  the  sheep's  back  is  from  the  coat  which  you  wear; 
something  as  different  as  the  willow  and  the  bamboo  are  from 
the  chairs  and  the  baskets  which  are  made  from  them. 

Xow.  the  doctrinaires  say  that  it  would  be  a  sufficient  reward 
to  that  laborer  to  give  him  the  crop  that  he  made  on  the  land. 
Would  it  \  For  what  length  of  time  will  you  give  him  those 
crops  \  If  you  ask  the  laborer,  he  will  say.  "I  made  this  farm: 
I  risked  my  life  in  the  work:  shortened  my  days  by  the  labor, 
the  exposure,  the  drudgery  of  making  this  farm.  I  never 
would  have  gone  to  this  amount  of  toil  if  I  had  not  believed 
that  society  would  secure  me  in  the  possession  of  the  farm 
after  I  made  it." 

Having  established  him  in  his  security  of  possession,  which 
I  say  is  tantamount  to  title,  suppose  that  laborer  wants  to 
change  his  farm  for  a  stock  of  manufactured  goods,  or  for 
silver  and  gold,  or  for  horses,  or  for  another  piece  of  land,  do 
you  mean  to  say  he  shall  not  have  the  right  to  do  it  I  If  so\ 
you  limit  his  title,  and  you  have  not  the  right  to  do  so.  That 
which  he  made  he  ought  to  have  the  right  to  dispose  of  on 
such  terms  as  please  him.    His  title  having  originated  in  the 


236  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

sacred  rights  of  labor,  you  should  not  limit  his  enjoyment  or 
his  disposition  of  that  which  his  labor  created.  If  you  recog- 
nize his  right  to  exchange  all  products  of  his  labor  for  others. 
In  other  words,  by  plain  course  of  reasoning,  you  arrive  at 
the  principle  that  the  bargain  and  sale  of  lands  is  founded  upon 
the  right  of  the  laborer  to  exchange  the  product  of  his  labor 
with  those  who  may  have  product  of  labor  which  he  could  use 
to  better  advantage  than  he  can  use  his  own. 

Now,  let  us  see.  The  laborer  who  made  the  farm  dies.  What 
shall  become  of  it?  Away  back  in  the  origin  of  property, 
occupancy  was  the  first  title  recognized.  As  long  as  one  indi- 
vidual, or  one  tribe,  occupied  a  certain  spot,  their  right  to  use 
it  was  recognized,  but  no  longer.  When  possession  was 
abandoned,  the  next  individual,  or  the  next  tribe  who  occupied 
that  spot,  had  the  right  of  possession.  When  tribes  ceased  to 
wander  about,  the  occupancy  of  the  spot  which  the  tribe  had 
taken  possession  of,  became  permanent. 

Therefore,  the  title  to  that  spot  grew  up  in  the  tribe  along 
with  permanent  possession.  No  civilization  was  ever  created 
by  wandering  tribes.  It  is  only  when  the  tribe  fixes  its  per- 
manent residence  in  some  particular  spot,  recognized  as 
exclusively  its  own,  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  law  and 
order  and  civilization.  It  is  clear  enough  when  we  consider 
one  tribe  in  its  relations  to  other  tribes.  Let  us  consider  the 
tribe  in  its  relations  to  its  members.  Each  individual  in  the 
beginning  had  a  title  by  occupancy  to  the  spot  which  he 
cultivated,  and  this  security  of  possession  lasted  so  long  as  the 
occupancy  lasted.  If  the  tribesman  abandoned  his  spot  of 
land,  with  the  intent  to  surrender  the  same,  then  the  next 
fortunate  tribesman  who  came  along  could  take  possession  of 
it  and  hold  it.  But,  in  the  course  of  time,  this  created  great 
inconvenience,  because,  as  favored  spots  became  more  desirable, 
the  competition  to  get  them  was  fiercer.  Hence,  there  were 
feuds,  bloody  struggles,  disorders  in  the  tribe.  Consequently, 
by  natural  evolution  society  was  forced,  first,  to  recognize  the 
right  of  the  individual  as  long  as  he  wished  to  occupy  the  spot 
which  he  had  taken  possession  of;  second  to  provide  for  the 
succession  to  that  title  when  the  spot  became  vacant. 

The  learned  men  tell  us  that,  at  the  death  of  the  occupant, 
his  own  family,  his  own  children,  being  naturally  the  first  who 
would  know  that  he  was  dead,  were  naturally  the  first  who 
would  take  possession  after  his  death. 

Therefore,  the  sons  of  the  deceased  tenant  always  became 
the  first  occupants  of  the  vacant  land  which  had  been  left 
vacant  by  the  death  of  their  father.  This  succession  of  the  sons 
to  the  fathers  becoming  universal,  was  finally  recognized  by  the 
law  of  the  tribe:  and  in  the  course  of  time  it  was  recognized 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc.  237 


further  in  the  law  which  allowed  the  tenant  to  make  a  will  and 
to  say  who  should  take  his  property  after  his  death. 

Thus  by  slow  and  almost  imperceptible  degrees,  the  tribe 
recognized,  first,  the  right  of  the  man  who  had  made  a  farm 
to  hold  it  as  long  as  he  lived :  second,  the  right  of  his  children 
to  follow  in  his  footsteps  and  to  receive  the  benefit  of  that 
which  their  father  had  created  by  his  labor:  third,  and  last, 
came  the  law  of  wills  and  testaments  which  allowed  the  tribes- 
man to  say  what  should  go  with  his  property  after  his  death. 

If  the  occupant  died  without  heirs  and  without  having  made 
a  will,  the  land  went  back  to  the  tribe,  or  the  State,  to  be  dis- 
posed of  as  public  property.  This  principle  is  recognized  to 
this  day  in  the  doctrine  of  escheats. 

Property  in  land  differs  in  nowise  from  property  in  horses 
and  cows.  The  law  of  property  is  the  same  naturally  in  real 
estate  as  in  personal  estate,  and  I  can  conceive  of  no  revenue 
in  any  community  which  is  so  just  as  that  which  lays  itself 
with  an  equal  burden  upon  all  kinds  of  property  in  proportion 
to  the  amount  thereof.  In  the  beginning,  one  tribesman,  like 
Abraham  or  Lot.  might  have  his  cattle  browsing  upon  a  thous- 
and hills,  while  another  tribesman  might  have  made  a  little 
farm  in  some  secluded  valley,  or  upon  some  thirsty,  rocky 
mountain-side  where  vines  were  planted,  or  where  olive  trees 
bore  their  fruit  to  the  industrious  citizen  who  had  year  in  and 
year  out  watched  and  tended  their  growth.  TVould  there  be 
any  justice  in  compelling  those  little  farmers  to  supply  the 
revenue  for  the  common  purpose  of  the  tribe,  and  not  compel 
a  contribution  pro  rata  from  the  men  who  owned  "exceeding 
many  flocks  and  herds?" 

The  trouble  about  these  doctrinaires  is  that  they  start  at 
the  present  day  and  reason  backward,  while  I  start  at  the 
fountain  head  and  reason  down.  I  take  things  as  history 
shows  them  to  have  been:  they  take  things  as  they  think  they 
ought  to  have  been. 

The  doctrinaire  further  says  that  if  the  tribesman  who  made 
a  farm  had  been  satisfied  to  fence  in  his  farm.  only,  the  com- 
mon would  have  remained  after  all  had  been  supplied.  In 
this  country,  we  have  millions  of  acres  of  "commons"  now 
waiting  any  one  "member  of  the  tribe"  who  wants  to  go  and 
take  his  share.  The  truth  of  it  is.  the  doctrinaire  doesnt  want 
to  go  out  into  the  wild  land  and  make  a  farm.  He  wants  to 
stay  where  he  is.  and  take  one  that  some  other  fellow  has  made. 
Especially  doth  he  crave  a  slice  of  the  Astor  estate,  which 
doctrinaires  have  talked  of  so  much  that  they  can  almost 
identify  their  shares  therein. 

One  of  the  doctrinaires  quotes  the  following  from  "Progress 
and  Poverty" :    "If  a  fair  distribution  of  land  were  made 


238  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

among  the  whole  population,  giving  to  each  his  equal  share, 
and  laws  enacted  which  would  impose  a  barrier  to  the  tendency 
to  concentration,  by  forbidding  the  holding  by  anyone  of  more 
than  a  fixed  amount,  what  would  become  of  the  increased 
population?" 

I  do  not  consider  it  any  part  of  my  task  to  assail  the  posi- 
tion taken  in  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  but  I  think  it  a  satis- 
factory answer  to  the  foregoing  question  to  say  that  in  the 
very  nature  of  things  posterity  must  be  the  heirs-at-law  of  the 
conditions  of  those  who  went  before.  To  say  that  we  can 
frame  a  social  fabric  so  flexibly  and  automatically  as  to  give 
an  equal  share  of  everything  to  every  child  born  into  the  world 
hereafter,  regardless  of  whether  that  child's  parents  were 
thrifty,  industrious,  virtuous  people,  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  thriftless,  indolent,  vicious  people,  seems  to  me  to  be  one 
of  the  wildest  dreams  that  ever  entered  the  human  mind.  No 
matter  how  equal  material  conditions  might  be  made  today  by 
legislation,  the  inherent  inequality  in  the  capacities  of  men, 
physically,  mentally,  spiritually,  would  evolve  differences 
tomorrow.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  equality  among  men, 
and  no  law  will  ever  get  it  to  them.  What  the  father  gains 
the  children  lose;  and  the  grandchildren  may  regain.  While 
one  man  runs  the  race  of  life  and  wins  it,  another  man, 
equally  tall  and  strong  will  run  the  race  and  lose  it.  Just 
why,  it  is,  in  some  cases,  difficult  to  tell. 

Some  men  naturally  lead;  some  naturally  follow,  some 
naturally  command ;  others  naturally  obey :  some  are  naturally 
strong;  others  are  naturally  weak.  The  law  of  life  to  some  is 
activity,  others  say  that  they  were  born  tired,  and  there  is  a 
certain  pathos  in  their  excuse  for  indolence,  for  they  were  born 
tired.  One  man  is  naturally  brave — physically,  morally — and 
he  will  venture.  Another  man  is  naturally  a  coward — physi- 
callv  or  morally — and  he  will  not  venture.  A  dozen  different 
traits,  or  combinations  of  traits,  make  failure  or  success  in 
life,  and  to  say  that  success  or  failure,  vice  and  virtue,  good 
and  bad,  are  the  results  of  environment  and  social  conditions, 
is  as  misleading,  as  a  general  statement  of  fundamental  facts, 
as  to  say  that  the  dove  and  the  hawk,  the  tiger  and  the  sheep, 
the  rattlesnake  and  the  harmless  "black  runner"  are  the  results 
of  environment.  Nature  in  its  act  of  creation,  made  the 
difference  between  the  fowls  of  the  air,  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
the  fish  of  the  sea,  the  men  and  women  who  inhabit  the  earth. 
From  the  remotest  ages,  of  which  we  have  record,  human 
nature  has  been  the  same  that  it  is  today.  Paganism  presented 
precisely  the  same  types  of  man  in  its  savagery  and  its  civiliza- 
tion that  Christianity  now  presents  in  its  savagery  and  civili- 
zation.   "There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun,"  and  the  very 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  239 

theories  which  the  doctrinaries  now  think  are  matters  of 
modern  discovery,  unknown  to  our  ancestors,  and  which  would 
have  been  adopted  had  our  ancestors  been  as  wise  as  we,  were 
discussed  in  the  days  of  Aristotle  and  had  the  very  best  thought 
of  the  sages  of  antiquity. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  however,  that  I  have  always  qualified 
the  Private  Ownership  of  Land  by  acknowledging  the 
supremacy  of  the  State.  The  tribe,  the  community,  the  State, 
the  Government  holds  supreme  power  over  the  life  and  liberty 
of  citizens,  and  over  the  ownership  of  the  soil.  The  State 
calls  for  me  to  give  up  my  individual  pursuits,  my  individual 
liberty,  my  individual  preference,  and  to  take  my  place  as  a 
soldier  in  the  ranks  of  the  army.  I  am  compelled  to  obey; 
that  is  an  obligation  which  rests  upon  me  as  a  member  of 
society.  Thus  the  State  can  demand  my  life  of  me  whenever 
the  State  declares  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the 
State.  In  like  manner,  the  State  can  restrain  me  of  my  liberty. 
For  instance,  in  times  of  epidemics,  we  have  shotgun  quaran- 
tine which  destroys  my  liberty  of  movement.  I  would  be  shot 
down  like  a  dog  if  I  sought  to  break  through  the  lines  of 
quarantine,  although  to  make  such  an  escape  might  mean  my 
individual  salvation,  whereas  obedience  to  law  amounts  to 
sentence  of  death.  In  this  case,  as  in  the  other,  the  State 
practically  demands  my  life  as  an  individual  as  a  sacrifice 
for  the  good  of  the  greater  number  of  citizens.  So,  as  to  prop- 
erty, no  man  holds  an  absolute  title  to  land  as  against  the 
State.  The  Government,  acting  for  all  the  tribe,  for  all  the 
people,  can  tear  down  or  burn  my  house  to  stop  the  spread  of 
fire.  It  can  confiscate  my  property  for  public  purposes,  when 
the  public  need  requires  it.  It  can  take  my  land  for  public 
buildings,  for  canals,  for  railroads,  or  for  new  dirt  roads 
through  the  country.  My  rights  in  the  premises  would  be 
recognized  in  the  payment  to  me  of  damages.  My  individual 
rights  would  be  assessed  in  so  many  dollars  and  cents.  Thus 
my  home,  which  might  be  almost  as  dear  to  me  as  my  life, 
would  be  coldly  valued  in  money,  and  although  I  left  it  with 
bitter  regrets,  even  with  bitter  tears  and  a  bitter  sense  of 
wrong,  I  would  have  to  surrender  my  individual  preference  to 
what  is  supposed  to  be  by  constituted  authorities  the  necessity 
of  the  State.  This  right  of  the  public  to  take  away  any  por- 
tion of  the  soil  from  the  individual,  and  to  dedicate  it  to  the 
use  of  the  public,  is  called  the  right  of  Eminent  Domain,  and 
is  a  remnant  of  the  old  system  which  recognized  that  the  title 
to  all  the  lands  was  in  the  King.  Of  course  the  King  stood  for 
the  State.  Centered  in  the  personal  sovereign  were  those 
sovereign  rights  which  belong  to  the  people  as  a  whole,  and 
the  people  as  a  whole  represented  by  the  King,  were  admitted 


240  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

to  be  the  owners  of  the  ultimate,  fee  in  the  land,  and  could 
compel  any  individual  to  surrender  his  individual  holdings 
for  the  benefit  of  the  entire  people,  just  ccompensation  having 
first  been  paid  to  the  individual.  It  is  in  that  sense  that  I  say 
private  ownership  of  land  is  just  as  holy  a  principle,  just  as 
equitable,  as  private  ownership  in  the  basket  which  I  made 
from  the  rushes  I  gathered  along  the  stream,  or  from  the 
splints  which  I  rived  out  from  the  white  oak;  just  as  sacred 
as  my  right  to  the  boat  which  I  hollowed  out  from  the  forest 
tree,  or  the  bark  hut,  or  the  hut  of  skins,  which  my  labor 
erected  to  shelter  me  and  my  family. 

The  doctrinaire  asks:  "Could  he  not  be  as  secure  in  his 
possession  if  the  land  were  owned  and  exaction  made  by  all 
the  people?"  Certainly.  That  is  my  contention.  The  whole 
tribe  did  exercise  dominion  over  the  land,  but  to  encourage 
the  individual  member  of  the  tribe  to  improve  a  particular 
portion  of  the  wild  land,  the  tribe  agreed  to  protect  the 
individual  in  that  which  his  labor  had  created,  namely  a  farm. 
My  contention  now  is  that  the  ultimate  ownership  of  the  land 
is  in  all  the  people;  but  society  had  a  perfect  right  to  divide 
it  on  such  terms  as  were  thought  best  and  to  guarantee  to  each 
individual  "security  of  possession,"  or  title,  to  that  which  he 
had  produced.  The  great  trouble  with  Mr.  Doctrinaire  is 
that  he  does  not  begin  at  the  beginning.  If  he  would  study 
the  condition  of  the  human  race  as  it  gradually  evolved  from 
the  patriarchal  state,  the  tribal  state,  the  nomad  state,  into 
that  fixed  and  complex  status  which  we  now  call  "Christian 
Civilization,"  he  would  readily  understand  how  private 
ownership  of  land  was  the  axis  upon  which  the  improvement 
of  the  conditions  of  the  individual  and  of  the  State  turned. 
As  long  as  tribes  wandered  about  from  province  to  province, 
with  their  herds  of  goats,  or  sheep,  or  cattle,  nibbling  the  grass 
which  nature  put  up,  and  moving  onward  to  another  pasture 
as  fast  as  one  was  exhausted,  there  could  be  nothing  but  tent 
life,  nothing  but  personal  property.  The  house  had  to  move 
every  time  the  family  moved.  Therefore,  when  the  herds 
devoured  the  grass  in  one  place,  and  the  tribe  had  to  move  to 
another,  tents  were  struck,  the  few  household  goods  were 
packed  on  the  backs  of  the  wives,  or  on  the  backs  of  other 
beasts  of  burden,  and  the  family  moved.  When  man  and  beast 
multiplied  to  such  an  extent  that  nature  no  longer  supplied  a 
sufficiency  of  food,  it  became  necessary  for  the  tribe  to  settle 
down,  and  to  divide  the  territory  upon  which  they  settled 
among  the  various  members  of  the  tribe.  That  was  done  in 
Germany,  as  well  as  in  various  other  countries,  but  I  take 
Germany  because  the  German  tribes  were  our  own  ancestors. 
They  divided  the  lands  every  year.    It  was  seldom  the  case 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  241 

that  the  same  tribesman  occupied  the  same  home  for  more 
than  one  year.  Like  the  Methodist  preachers  of  today,  their 
homes  were  always  on  the  go.  The  farmer's  home  in  those 
days  was  precisely  like  the  Methodist  preacher's  homes  today — 
a  matter  to  be  fixed  at  the  annual  conference.  The  Methodist 
preacher  who  today  is  preaching  in  the  town  may  next  year 
be  sent  into  the  remote  rural  precincts:  the  mountain  parson 
may  next  year  be  sent  to  the  seaboard.  The  church  is  fixed 
and  the  parsonage  is  stationary,  but  the  preacher  and  his  wife 
and  his  children  are  forever  moving.  Now  in  precisely  the 
same  manner  the  tribesmen  of  the  German  tribes  used  to  be 
going  from  farm  to  farm,  and  there  were  no  considerable 
improvements  made  while  that  state  of  affairs  existed.  Why? 
Because  we  are  just  so  constituted  that  we  do  not  care  to  build 
houses  for  other  people  to  live  in,  if  we  know  it.  When  we 
start  out  to  beautify  a  home,  we  may  never  enjoy  it,  but  we 
expect  to  do  so  at  the  time,  and  without  that  expectation  there 
would  be  no  beautiful  homes. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  thinks  because  each  tribesman  would  try  to 
grab  the  best  piece  of  land,  there  was  original  injustice  in 
allowing  private  ownership.  If  he  will  think  for  a  moment, 
he  will  realize  that  the  native  selfishness  of  man  does  not  make 
against  the  private  ownership  of  land  to  any  further  extent 
than  it  does  to  the  private  ownership  of  personal  property. 
When  the  tribesmen  went  out  to  hunt,  each  hunter  sought  to 
bring  down  the  finest  stag.  Each  hunter  naturally  wanted  to 
hunt  where  the  best  game  was  to  be  found.  Hence  those  eternal 
wars  between  the  Indian  tribes  which  brought  down  the 
population  on  the  American  continent.  Hence  also  those  feuds 
and  tribal  wars  which  desolated  the  East  in  the  times  of 
nomad  life. 

We  find  Abraham  and  Lot  in  a  bitter  dispute  over  certain 
pasture;  but  as  to  the  well  which  Abraham  "had  digged" 
there  was  no  resisting  his  claim,  that  well  was  his  property. 
Why?  Because  in  the  quaint  language  of  the  Bible  "He  had 
digged  that  well."  In  other  words,  while  nature  put  the  water 
in  under  the  soil,  and  while  nature  made  the  soil  itself,  it  was 
Abraham's  judgment  which  selected  the  place  where  he  could 
find  the  water,  and  it  was  Abraham's  labor  that  removed  the 
earth  which  covered  the  water.  In  other  words,  Abraham 
made  the  well,  in  precisely  the  same  sense  that  the  pioneer  in 
the  wilderness  makes  a  farm. 

But,  as  I  said,  the  competitive  principle,  each  one  wanting 
to  get  what  is  best,  reveals  itself  in  all  directions.  Every 
fisherman  has  always  wanted  the  best  fishing  grounds.  Nations 
have  been  brought  to  war  by  this  cause,  to  say  nothing  of 
tribal  disputes  and  individual  contests. 


242  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

Nowhere  have  I  contended  that  it  was  private  ownership  of 
land  that  made  it  possible  for  the  laborer  to  claim  and  retain 
the  product  of  his  labor.  I  could  not  have  said  that  because 
I  know  quite  well  that  personal  property  preceded  property  in 
land.  In  other  words,  the  laborers  acquired  a  full  title  to  the 
rude  garments  in  which  they  clothed  themselves,  the  rude 
implements  which  they  used  in  the  chase,  their  weapons, 
canoes,  etc.,  long  before  they  ever  made  farms.  This  has  been 
explained  fully  elsewhere  and  does  not  at  all  antagonize  the 
statement  that  after  a  tribesman  has  acquired  by  his  labor  an 
interest  in  the  land,  the  government  of  the  tribe  may  be  so 
arranged  that  the  produce  of  the  land  will  be  taken  away  from 
the  land-owner  as  fast  as  he  produces  it.  Instead  of  robbery 
by  taxation  in  land — products  preceding  private  ownership 
in  land — the  reverse  is  the  case.  To  fleece  the  laborer  of  what 
he  produces  on  his  farm  was  the  after-thought  of  those  who 
governed  the  tribe. 

This  is  shown  by  the  wretchedness  of  the  peasant  class  in 
Russia  today.  Historians  tell  us  that  the  Russian  peasant  for- 
merly owned  a  very  considerable  portion  of  the  land,  just  as 
the  French  peasants  did,  and  in  addition  to  the  individual 
ownership  which  was  in  the  Russian  peasantry,  there  was  a 
large  quantity  of  communal  land  which  belonged  to  each  com- 
munity of  peasants  as  a  whole,  In  the  process  of  time,  the 
ruling  class  in  Russia  put  such  burdens  upon  the  peasant  pro- 
prietor that  he  gradually  lost  his  land  and  became  a  serf.  Of 
course,  Mr.  Doctrinaire  recalls  that  in  1860  the  serfs  of  Russia 
were  freed,  and  they  were  given  a  large  portion  of  the  land 
which  had  been  taken  away  from  them  by  the  Russian  nobles. 
Thev  also  held  the  communal  lands.  What  has  been  the  result  ? 
The  ruling  classes  have  put  such  heavy  burdens  in  the  way  of 
dues  and  taxes  upon  the  peasants  that  their  ownership  of  the 
land,  communal  and  individual,  has  brought  them  none  of  the 
blessings  which  they  anticipated.  Thus  we  have  a  striking 
and  contemporaneous  illustration  of  the  great  truth  which  I 
have  sought  to  emphasize,  namely,  that  the  mere  ownership  of 
land  does  not  emancipate  the  people. 

Arthur  Young,  the  famous  "Suffolk  Squire,"  rode  horse- 
back over  the  rural  districts  of  France,  just  before  the  Revolu- 
tion broke  out.  He  found  that  the  French  peasants  owned 
their  own  farms.  He  made  a  close  and  sympathetic  study  of 
their  condition. 

And  what  was  that  condition? 

Wretched  to  the  very  limit  of  human  endurance.  The  king, 
the  noble,  and  the  priest  were  literally  devouring  the  Com- 
mon People.  Privilege,  Titles.  Taxes,  Feudal  dues  were  driv- 
ing the  masses  to  despair,  to  desperation. 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


243 


Yet  the  French  peasant  had  "access  to  the  land." 

In  England,  at  that  time,  the  peasants  did  not  own  land, 
and  yet  their  condition  was  incomparably  better  than  that  of 
the  French. 

Why  I  Because  they  were  not  ground  down  by  Taxes  and 
Feudal  dues. 

Could  you  ask  a  more  convincing  illustration? 

]\Ir.  Doctrinaire  makes  the  point  that  when  one  member  of 
the  tribe  decided  to  undertake  the  arduous  task  of  making  a 
farm  out  of  a  few  acres  of  the  millions  which  belonged  to  the 
tribe,  this  industrious  member  of  the  community  "robbed"  all 
the  others  when  he  claimed  as  his  own  that  which  his  hand- 
had  made.  I  can  see  no  more  "robbery"  in  this  case  than  in 
that  of  another  tribesman  who  went  and  cut  down  one  of  the 
millions  of  forest  trees  which  belonged  to  the  tribe,  and  with 
painful  labor  hollowed  out  this  tree  and  created  a  canoe.  At 
the  time  the  one  tribesman  made  the  canoe,  every  other  tribes- 
man had  the  same  chance  to  do  the  same  thing.  At  the  time 
the  one  tribesman  went  into  the  woods  and  made  a  farm  every 
other  tribesman  had  the  same  right.  If  Mr.  Doctrinaire  thinks 
that  the  first  occupant  of  any  particular  spot  did  not  have  the 
right  to  locate  a  farm,  he  might  as  well  say  that  the  first 
finder  of  the  cavern,  or  the  hollow  tree,  did  not  have  the 
right  to  occcupy  that  which  he  had  first  found,  and  yet  he 
knows  perfectly  well  that  this  right  of  discovery  and  occupancy 
was  always  recognized  from  the  beginning  of  time  and  that 
from  the  very  nature  of  things  it  had  to  be  recognized  to  pre- 
vent the  bloodiest  feuds  in  every  tribe.  I  A  curious  survival 
of  this  Right  of  Discovery  is  to  be  seen  even  now  in  the  claim 
to  the  "Bee  Tree"  by  the  first  to  find  it.  I 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  say-,  impliedly,  that  if  the  tribesman  had 
fenced  in  no  more  than  the  spot  out  of  which  he  had  made  a 
farm,  injustice  would  not  have  been  done  to  the  tribe:  but  he 
says  the  tribesman  went  further  and  fenced  in  a  great  deal 
more — "vast  acres."  which  he  could  not  use.  and  also  "claimed" 
these  as  his  own.  How  does  Mr.  Doctrinaire  know  that  \  I 
did  not  state  anything  of  the  sort.  Xor  does  the  historian 
state  anything  of  the  sort.  I  was  tracing  title  to  land  to  its 
origin-  and  I  contended  that  the  origin  of  title  to  land  was 
labor.  Consequently,  my  contention  was  that  the  tribesman 
fenced  in  that  which  his  labor  had  redeemed  from  the  wilder- 
ness— his  original  purpose  in  fencing  it  in  being  partly  to 
identify  what  was  his  own.  partly  to  assert  his  exclusive  pos- 
session, but  chiefly  to  protect  his  crop  from  the  ravages  of  the 
wild  animals  that  were  still  roaming  at  large  in  the  forest. 
Mr.  Doctrinaire  must  remember  that  the  fencing  of  the  farm 
was  one  of  the  most  tremendous  difficulties  that  the  pioneer 


244  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

met  with.  He  had  no  barbed  wire ;  he  had  no  woven  wire,  he 
had  no  convenient  saw-mill  from  which  he  could  haul  plank. 
No;  he  had  to  cut  down  enormous  trees,  and  by  the  hardest 
labor  known  to  physical  manhood,  he  had  to  split  those  trees 
into  rails,  and  with  these  rails  fence  in  that  little  dominion 
which  he  rescued  from  "the  world,"  that  little  oasis  in  a  great 
desert  of  savagery. 

To  put  up  the  fence  was  heroic  work.  To  keep  it  up  was 
just  as  heroic,  for  forest  fires  destroyed  it  from  time  to  time, 
1  the  pioneer  had  to  replace  the  barrier  against  the  encroach- 
ment of  animal  life  and  the  inroads  of  savagery  with  as  great 
a  tenacity  and  as  sublime  a  courage  as  that  of  the  people  of 
Holland,  who  tore  their  country  from  the  clutches  of  the 
ocean  and  barred  out  the  sea  with  dikes.  Tell  me,  that  after 
the  pioneer  had  created  this  little  paradise  of  his — rude  though 
it  might  have  been — amidst  the  terrors  and  the  toils  and  sacri- 
fices of  that  life  in  the  wilderness,  it  should  be  taken  from  him 
by  the  first  man  who  coveted  it,  and  who  said:  "Here,  take 
your  crop.  That  is  all  you  are  entitled  to:  Take  your  crop 
and  give  me  your  farm ! "  Would  that  have  been  right,  at  the 
time  private  property  was  first  recognized  by  our  people  in 
German}7  ?  Would  that  have  been  right  at  the  time  our  pioneer 
farmers  in  New  England  and  Virginia  created  their  farms, 
endured  difficulties  and  dangers  which  make  them  stand  out 
in  heroic  outline  on  the  canvas  of  history  ?  No,  by  the  splendor 
of  God !  It  would  have  been  robbery  and  nothing  less  than 
robbery  for  the  tribe  to  have  confiscated  the  farm  which  the 
pioneer  of  America  had  made — partly  with  his  rifle,  partly 
with  his  axe,  partly  with  his  spade — and  throw  it  into  the 
common  lot  where  the  idler  and  the  criminal  would  have  just 
as  much  benefit  from  it  as  the  pioneer  who  had  made  the 
farm. 

As  to  the  abuse  of  land  ownership,  that  is  an  entirely 
different  question.  I  agree  that  there, should  be  no  monopoly 
of  land  for  speculative  purposes.  The  platform  of  the  People's 
Party  has  constantly  kept  that  declaration  as  a  part  of  its 
creed.  The  abuse  of  land  ownership  is  quite  a  different  thing 
from  land  ownership  itself.  I  am  not  defending  any  of  its 
abuses.  I  am  simply  saying  that  the  principle  is  sound.  All 
those  things  which  belong  to  the  class  of  private  utilities 
should  be  left  to  private  ownership,  because  I  believe  in  indi- 
vidualism ;  but  all  those  things  which  partake  of  the  nature  of 
public  utilities  should  belong  to  the  public. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  says  that  railroads  have  their  power  based 
in  the  fixed  principle  of  private  ownership  of  land.  I  deny 
this  utterly.  It  was  always  necessary  for  the  civilized  com- 
munity to  have  public  roads.    Even  the  Indians  had  their 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  245 


great  trails  which  were  in  the  nature  of  public  roads.  A  public 
road  never  of  itself  did  anything  injurious  to  a  community. 
The  taking  of  land  for  a  public  road  confers  a  benefit  upon  the 
entire  community.  It  is  for  that  reason  it  is  laid  out.  The 
amount  of  land  which  is  taken  for  a  road,  whether  you  cover 
it  with  blocks  of  stone,  as  the  Romans  did,  or  whether  you 
cover  it  with  iron  rails,  as  modern  corporations  do,  can  inflict 
no  injury  whatever  upon  the  community  unless  you  go  further. 
For  instance,  if  you  erect  toll  gates  on  the  public  highways 
and  vest  in  some  corporation  the  right  to  charge  toll  on  freight 
and  passengers  at  those  toll  gates,  then  you  have  erected  a 
tyranny  which  can  rob  the  traveler  and  injure  the  community. 
In  that  case,  you  can  clearly  see  it  is  not  the  road,  it  is  not  the 
land  over  which  the  road  passes,  that  is  hurting  the  individual 
and  the  public.  The  thing  which  hurts  is  that  franchise  which 
empowers  the  corporation  to  tax  the  citizens  and  the  property 
of  the  citizens  as  they  pass  along  that  highway.  In  like  man- 
ner, the  road  which  the  transportation  companies  use  could 
never  have  inflicted  harm  upon  individuals  or  communities. 
The  thing  which  hurts  is  the  franchise  which  empowers  the 
corporation  to  rob  the  people  with  unjust  freight  and  pas- 
senger tolls  as  they  pass  along  the  highway. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  mires  up  badly  in  trying  to  evade  the  point 
which  I  made  about  Italy.  I  contended  that  while  it  was  true 
that  great  estates  were  the  ruin  of  Italy,  there  had  to  be  some 
general  cause  at  work,  injurious  to  the  average  man,  before  the 
soil  could  be  concentrated  into  these  great  estates.  This  is 
very  obvious  to  anyone  who  will  stop  to  think  a  moment.  Mr. 
Doctrinaire  thinks  that  the  great  estates  in  Italy  were  acquired 
by  simply  claiming  the  land  and  fencing  it  in,  by  "each  indi- 
vidual claiming  far  more  than  he  could  use."  If  all  the  land 
of  Italy  had  been  claimed  and  enclosed,  the  power  that  these 
land  claimers  had  over  subsequent  comers  is  obvious;  but  how 
did  "the  claimers"  get  the  lands?  The  most  superficial 
knowledge  of  Roman  History  ought  to  convince  Mr.  Doctri- 
naire that  Italy  was  cut  up  into  small  holdings  until  one 
branch  of  the  government,  the  aristocracy,  represented  by  the 
Senate,  gathered  into  its  own  hands  by  persistent  encroach- 
ment all  the  powers  of  the  State.  After  that  had  been  done, 
they  fixed  the  machinery  of  government  so  that  the  aristocracy 
were  almost  entirely  exempt  from  public  burdens,  whereas  the 
common  people  had  to  bear  out  not  only  their  just  portion,  but 
also  the  portion  which  the  aristocracy  shirked.  The  ruling 
class,  the  patricians,  not  only  escaped  their  burdens  in  uphold- 
ing the  State,  but  they  appropriated  to  themselves  the  revenue 
which  the  Roman  State  exacted  from  the  lower  class,  the 
plebians.    The  result  was  that  the  Italian  peasant  found  him- 


246  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


self  unable  to  sustain  the  burdens  which  the  government  put 
upon  him  and  he  abandoned  his  farm,  just  as  the  French 
peasant  quit  the  land,  for  the  same  reason,  prior  to  the  French 
Revolution.  In  other  words,  the  small  proprietor  had  to  sell 
out  to  the  patrician,  and  the  patricians  got  these  great  estates 
in  the  same  manner  that  Rockefeller,  for  instance,  got  the 
estate  which  he  now  holds  at  Tarrytown.  The  Standard  Oil 
King  did  not  simply  stretch  his  wires  and  "claim"  land.  He 
bought  out  the  people  who  found  themselves  unable  or  unwill- 
ing to  hold  their  lands.  Rockefeller  stood  relatively  on  the 
same  ground  of  advantage  held  by  the  Roman  patricians. 
Governmental  favoritism,  and  special  privilege,  the  power  of 
money  which  he  had  attained  through  unjust  laws,  made  him 
more  able  to  buy  than  the  individual  owners  around  him  were 
to  hold.  Therefore  he  absorbed  the  small  estates,  and  his 
estate  became  the  "great  estate,"  just  as  such  great  estates  were 
created  in  Italy. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  can  see  the  process  going  on  around  us.  He 
can  see  how  great  estates  absorb  small  estates.  Our  legislation 
for  one  hundred  years  has  been  in  the  interest  of  capital 
against  labor.  A  plutocracy  which  enjoys  the  principal  bene- 
fits of  government,  and  contributes  almost  nothing  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  government,  has  been  built  up:  charters  have  been 
granted  by  which  large  corporations  exploit  the  public ;  and  in 
this  way  great  estates,  whether  in  stocks  or  bonds,  or  gold,  or 
land,  have  been  created. 

The  same  principles,  the  same  favoritism,  the  same  privi- 
lege, working  in  different  ways,  brought  about  the  same  results 
in  France  before  the  Revolution,  in  Rome  before  its  downfall, 
in  Egypt,  in  Persia,  in  the  Babylonian  Empire.  If  there  is 
any  one  word  which  can  be  appropriately  used  as  an  epitaph 
for  all  the  dead  nations  of  antiquity,  that  word  is  "privilege." 
The  government  was  operated  by  a  ruling  class  for  the  benefit 
of  that  class,  and  the  result  was  national  decay,  national  death. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  asks  me:  "How  did  the  ruling  class  at 
Rome  come  to  control  the  money?"  I  might  answer  by  asking 
him :  "How  did  the  controlling  class  in  the  United  States 
come  into  control  of  the  money?"  He  would  certainly  admit 
that  they  have  got  control  of  it.  How  did  they  get  it  ?  They 
took  into  their  own  hands,  in  the  days  of  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton, the  control  of  governmental  machinery.  They  erected  a 
tariff  system  to  give  special  privileges  to  manufacturers.  Out 
of  this  has  come  the  monopoly  of  the  American  market  which 
the  manufacturers  enjoy.  The  natural  evolution  of  the  tariff 
act  which  Alexander  Hamilton  put  upon  our  statute  book 
more  than  one  hundred  years  ago,  produced  The  Trusts. 

Again,  the  power  to  create  a  circulating  medium  to  be  used 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  247 

as  money  and  to  expand  and  contract  this  circulating  medium, 
thereby  controlling  the  rise  and  fall  of  markets,  was  a  vicious 
principle  embedded  into  our  system  by  Alexander  Hamilton, 
more  than  one  hundred  years  ago. 

Again,  the  granting  of  charters  to  private  companies  to 
exploit  utilities,  is  another  means  by  which  our  patrician  class 
has  secured  the  control  of  money.  Now  at  Rome  there  was  a 
similar  process.  Instrumentalities  were  different,  the  names 
of  things  were  different,  but  the  ruling  class  at  Rome  had  the 
power  of  fixing  the  taxes,  and  they  appropriated  to  themselves 
the  proceeds  of  these  taxes.  They  had  the  power  of  legisla- 
tion in  their  hands  and  exploited  the  public  for  their  own 
benefit.  In  this  way  they  secured,  of  course,  the  control  of 
money.  The  one  advantage  of  paying  no  tax  themselves  and 
of  appropriating  to  themselves  the  taxes  which  they  levied 
upon  the  plebians,  was  sufficient  to  give  them  not  only  the 
control  of  money,  but  the  control  of  the  land  and  of  the  man. 
In  fact  that  tremendous  power  to  fix  the  taxes  and  to  appro- 
priate the  public  revenue,  is  all  that  the  ruling  class  of  any 
country  need  have  in  order  to  establish  an  intolerable  despotism 
over  the  unfavored  classes. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  has  the  fatal  habit  of  crawling  backwards 
with  his  logic.  He  says  that  the  Roman  Patrician  could  not 
have  controlled  the  money  until  he  got  control  of  the  land. 
The  slightest  reflection  ought  to  convince  him  that  this  cannot 
be  true.  No  class  of  men  ever  secured  the  control  of  money 
by  merely  controlling  the  land.  Just  the  reverse  is  the  uni- 
versal truth.  Without  any  exception  whatsoever,  governmental 
machinery,  the  taxing  system,  usury,  expansion  and  contrac- 
tion of  the  currency  hold  the  land-owner  at  their  mercy.  The 
land-owner,  as  such,  never  had  them  at  his  mercy  and  he  never 
will. 

Another  instance  of  the  crawl-backwards  method  of  reason- 
ing is  given  when  Mr.  Doctrinaire  says  that  usury  grew  out  of 
land  monopoly  instead  of  land  monopoly  growing  out  of 
usury.  When  a  man  gets  himself  into  such  a  state  of  mind 
that  he  can  deliberately  write  a  statement  of  that  sort  for 
publication,  he  is  beyond  reach  of  any  ordinary  process  of 
conviction  and  conversion.  My  statement  was  that  usury  is 
a  vulture  that  has  gorged  itself  upon  the  vitals  of  nations  since 
the  beginning  of  time.  Mr.  Doctrinaire  says  this  is  not  true. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  says  that  land  monopoly  came  first,  and 
then  usury.  If  rich  people  got  all  the  land  first,  so  that  they 
had  a  land  monopoly,  upon  whom  did  they  practice  usury? 
How  could  they  fatten  on  those  who  had  nothing?  If  Mr. 
Doctrinaire  is  "at  all  familiar  with  the  trouble  between  the 
Russians,  and  the  Jews  in  Russia  he  knows  that  one  of  the 


24:8  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

accusations  brought  by  the  Kussian  against  the  Jew  is  that 
the  Kussian  land-owner  has  been  devoured  by  the  money- 
lending  Jew.  If  he  knows  anything  about  our  agricultural 
troubles  in  the  South  and  in  the  West,  he  knows  that  the 
Southern  and  Western  farmer  complains  that  he  has  been 
devoured  by  usury.  If  he  knows  anything  about  the  history 
of  the  Russian  serf,  he  knows  that  the  money-lending  patri- 
cians made  serfs  out  of  the  small  land-owners  by  usury.  If 
he  will  study  the  subject,  he  will  find  that  in  Rome,  Egypt 
and  Assyria  the  small  land-owner  was  devoured  by  usury, 
had  to  part  with  his  property,  and  thus  surrender  to  those 
who  were  piling  up  great  fortunes  by  governmental  privilege 
and  by  the  control  of  money. 

Take  the  Rothschild  family  for  an  example.  Did  they  have 
a  land  monopoly  which  made  it  possible  for  them  to  wield  the 
vast  powers  of  usury?  Theirs  is  a  typical  case.  Study  it  a 
moment.  A  small  Jewish  dealer  and  money-lender  in  Frank- 
fort is  chosen  by  a  rascally  ruler  of  one  of  the  German  States 
as  a  go-between  in  a  villainous  transaction  whereby  the  little 
German  ruler  sells  his  subjects  into  military  service  to  the 
King  of  England.  These  soldiers,  who  were  bought,  are 
known  to  history  as  the  Hessians,  and  they  fought  against  us 
in  the  Revolution.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  Rothschild 
fortune,  the  transaction  having  been  very  profitable  to  the 
Rothschild  who  managed  it.  Later,  during  the  Napoleonic 
Wars,  the  character  of  a  Rothschild  for  trustworthiness  became 
established  among  princes  and  kings  who  were  confederated 
against  Napoleon,  and  many  of  the  financial  dealings  of  that 
day  were  made  through  him.  Of  course,  these  huge  financial 
transactions  were  profitable  to  the  Rothschilds.  Again,  a 
certain  German  ruler,  during  those  troublesome  times, 
entrusted  all  of  his  cash  to  the  safe-keeping  of  a  Rothschild, 
the  purpose  being  to  put  the  money  where  Napoleon  would 
not  get  it.  For  many  years  the  Rothschild  had  the  benefit  of 
this  capital,  and  he  put  it  out  to  the  very  best  advantage  in 
loans  and  speculations,  here  and  there.  By  the  time  Napoleon 
was  overthrown  at  Waterloo,  the  Rothschild  family  had  become 
so  rich  and  strong  that  it  spread  over  the  European  world. 
One  member  of  the  family  took  England,  another  France, 
another  Austria,  another  Belgium,  the  parent  house  remaining 
in  Germany,  and  to  this  day  the  Rothschild  family  is  the 
dominant  financial  influence  of  the  European  world.  In  other 
words,  by  the  power  of  money  and  the  power  of  usury,  they 
were  able  to  make  a  partition  of  Europe  and  they  are  more 
truly  the  rulers  of  nations  than  are  the  Hapsburgs,  the  Hohen- 
zollerns,  the  Romanoffs,  or  any  other  one  dynasty  which  nomi- 
nally wields  the  sceptre. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  249 


Now,  can  Mr.  Doctrinaire  ask  for  a  better  illustration  of  the 
truth  of  my  statement  that  the  power  of  money  is  not  based 
upon  the  monopoly  of  land ;  and  that  the  monopoly  of  land  is 
the  fruitage  of  the  tree  of  usury  ?  Originally,  the  Rothschilds 
owned  no  land.  It  was  only  after  they  had  become  so  rich  that 
they  were  compelled  to  look  around  for  good  investments  that 
they  began  to  buy  real  estate.  Their  A'ast  fortune,  which 
staggers  the  human  mind  in  the  effort  to  comprehend  it,  was 
not  the  growth  of  land  monopoly,  but  was  the  growth  of  usury. 
What  the  Rothschilds  have  done  in  modern  times,  men  of  like 
character  did  in  ancient  times,  and  just  as  the  modern  world 
will  decay  and  collapse  if  these  evil  accumulations  be  not 
prevented,  so  in  ancient  times  people  went  to  decay  and 
extinction  because  no  method  of  reform  was  found  in  time  to 
work  salvation. 

Mr.  Doctrinaire  asks  me  what  is  the  cause  of  the  Standard 
Oil  monopoly.  I  thought  that  if  there  was  any  one  thing  we 
all  agreed  about,  it  was  that  the  Standard  Oil  monopoly  had 
its  origin  in  violations  of  law,  in  the  illegal  use  of  those  public 
roads  which  are  called  transportation  lines,  the  secret  rebate, 
the  discriminating  service,  the  favoritism  which  the  trans- 
portation company  can  exercise  in  favor  of  one  shipper  against 
all  others,  to  the  destruction  of  competition.  You  might  end 
land  monopoly,  but  as  long  as  the  railroad  franchises  exist,  the 
Standard  Oil  monopoly  will  exist,  if  they  can  get  the  favored, 
illegal  treatment  which  they  got  in  the  building  up  of  their 
monopoly,  and  which  they  still  have  in  sustaining  it.  The 
power  of  Privilege  in  securing  money,  and  the  power  of  money 
in  destroying  competition,  was  never  more  strikingly  evident 
than  in  the  colossal  growth  of  Standard  Oil.  Mr.  Doctrinaire 
might  own  half  the  oil  wells  in  America,  but  unless  he  made 
terms  with  the  Standard  he  would  never  get  his  oil  on  the 
market  at  a  profit.  The  Big-Pistol  is  not  the  ownership  of  the 
oil  well.    The  Big-Pistol  is  the  mis-use  of  franchises. 

With  all  the  power  that  is  in  me.  I  am  fighting  the  frightful 
conditions  which  beset  us.  but  I  know,  as  well  as  I  know  any- 
thing, that  the  principle  of  the  private  ownership  of  land  has 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  our  trouble. 

Repeal  the  laws  which  grant  the  Privileges  that  lead  to 
Monopoly;  equalize  the  taxes;  make  the  rich  support  the  gov- 
ernment in  proportion  to  their  wealth;  restore  public  utilities 
to  the  public;  put  the  power  of  self-government  back  into  the 
hands  of  the  people  by  Direct  Legislation;  restore  our  Con- 
stitutional system  of  finance;  pay  off  the  National  debt  and 
wipe  out  the  National  banking  system;  quit  giving  public 
money  to  pet  banks  for  private  benefit  ;  remove  all  taxes  from 


250  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


the  necessaries  of  life;  establish  postal  savings  banks;  return 
to  us  the  God-given  right  to  freedom  of  trade. 

With  these  reforms  in  operation,  millionaires  would  cease 
to  multiply  and  fewer  Americans  would  be  paupers.  Trusts 
would  not  tyrannize  over  the  laborer  and  the  consumer,  Cor- 
porations could  not  plunder  a  people  whose  political  leaders 
they  have  bought.  Some  statesman  might  again  declare  as 
Legare  declared  twenty  years  before  the  Civil  War:  "We 
have  no  poor." 

English  travelers  might  have  no  occasion  to  say,  as  Rider 
Haggard  said  some  years  ago,  that  our  condition  was  becoming 
so  intolerable  that  there  must  be  reform  or  revolution.  On 
the  contrary,  the  English  travelers  might  say  once  more,  as 
Charles  Dickens  said  in  1843,  that  an  Angel  with  a  naming 
sword  would  attract  less  attention  than  a  beggar  in  the 
streets. 

And  with  these  reforms  accomplished  any  man  in  America 
who  wanted  to  work  a  farm  of  his  own  could  do  it. 

I  cannot  promise  that  he  would  get  one  of  the  corner  lots  of 
the  Astor  estate,  but  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  if  he  really 
wanted  a  farm,  and  were  willing  to  take  it  a  few  miles  outside 
of  the  city,  town,  or  village,  he  could  get  just  as  much  land  as 
he  cared  to  work. 


Is  the  Study  of  Latin  and  Greek 
Necessary  to  the  Practical 
Lawyer  ? 

University  of  Missouri, 

Hon.  Thos.  E.  Watson. 

Dear  Sir:  I  read  with  interest  in  a  number  of  your  Magazine 
your  advice  regarding  what  you  consider  a  proper  preparation  for 
the  study  of  the  law,  and  while  your  eminent  success  as  a  lawyer 
and  statesman  abundantly  qualifies  you  to  speak  with  authority  on 
the  subject,  yet  I  believe  your  statements  in  that  connection  would 
not  command  general  assent. 

You  say,  for  instance,  not  to  waste  four  years  on  a  general  college 
course;  that  a  thorough  English  education  is  sufficient  as  a  basis 
for  specializing.  But  how  can  one  obtain  a  thorough  English 
education  who  has  neglected  the  Latin  language  from  which  we 
directly  derive  more  than  a  third  of  our  English  words,  and  how  is 
it  possible  to  obtain  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language 
without  having  studied  the  Greek?  The  Latin  language  is,  without 
doubt,  the  most  logical  language  the  world  has  ever  seen,  and  the 
value  of  translation  in  forming  a  correct  English  style  has  always 
been  recognized.  It  was  largely  by  this  method,  combined  with 
practice  in  debate,  that  Grattan,  Pitt,  Brougham,  Gladstone — great  4 
lights  of  the  legal  profession — were  enabled  to  conquer  a  style 
which  convinced  courts,  persuaded  juries  and  moved  parliaments. 

And,  again,  how  can  a  student  really  understand  constitutional 
law,  the  great  questions  of  personal  liberty,  who  has  not  sought  the 
genesis  of  these  provisions  in  the  forests  of  Germany,  who  has  not 
traced  their  development  in  Holland  and  England,  whence  we  have 
received  them  as  a  precious  inheritance?  How  can  he  thoroughly 
understand  even  the  technical  rules  of  the  law  of  real  property 
unless  he  is  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  the 
rise  and  development  of  the  feudal  system? 

Of  course,  one  may  become  a  succesful  practitioner,  a  conductor 
of  litigations,  without  knowing  any  of  these  things,  but  I  doubt  if  he 
would  ever  become  a  great  lawyer.  While  a  four  years'  college 
course  may  be  unnecessary  for  a  prospective  law  student,  he  who 
aspires  to  proficiency  in  the  greatest  of  all  sciences,  the  science  of 
justice,  should  have  a  broad  and  firm  foundation  on  which  to  build, 
whether  he  lays  that  foundation  in  the  halls  of  academic  learning 
or  in  private  study,  and,  other  things  being  equal,  the  student  who 
has  the  best  preparation  will  be  likely  to  distance  his  competitors 
in  the  race  for  success.  Yours  respectfully. 

V.  E.  PHELPS. 

Ax  SAVER. 

The  foregoing  letter,  which  comes  from  one  of  the  best  of 
our  colleges,  is  cheerfully  published.  The  writer  takes  issue 
with  me  on  the  proposition  that  a  four  years'  course  in  college 


252 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


is  not  necessary  to  prepare  a  young  man  for  the  practise  of 
law. 

It  is  a  subject  upon  which  we  may  have  an  honest  difference 
of  opinion  without  any  hair  pulling.  Mr.  Phelps  thinks  that 
we  must  learn  Latin  before  we  can  know  the  English  language, 
and  that  we  must  learn  Greek  before  we  can  know  the  Latin. 
Where  does  that  lane  lead  to  ?  Were  there  no  languages  back 
of  the  Greek? 

If  we  must  learn  Latin  to  understand  English,  and  learn 
Greek  to  understand  Latin,  what  must  we  learn  to  understand 
Greek  ?  Won't  we  have  to  finally  hook  on  to  Hebrew,  Sanscrit 
or  some  other  old  language  away  back  yonder  in  the  dim 
regions  of  antiquity?  This  thing  of  rooting  up  the  dead 
languages  to  learn  how  to  talk  English  is  a  tremendous  sug- 
gestion. 

I  hope  Mr.  Phelps  will  not  think  hard  of  me  for  saying  that 
his  plan  might  result  in  a  first-class  philologist,  but  would  not 
necessarily  Turing  forth  a  first-class  lawyer. 

"How  can  one  obtain  a  thorough  English  education  who  has 
neglected  the  Latin  language  from  which  we  directly  derive 
more  than  a  third  of  our  English  words?" 

That  is  Mr.  Phelps'  first  question. 

It  occurs  to  me  that  it  is  possible  to  learn  the  meaning  of 
one-third  of  the  words  which  came  from  the  Latin  source,  in 
the  same  way  that  one  learns  the  meaning  of  the  other  two- 
thirds. 

Mr.  Phelps  says  one-third  came  from  the  Latin.  I  haven't 
counted  them,  but  take  his  word  for  it. 

Now,  where  did  the  other  two-thirds  come  from? 

What  languages  must  one  study  to  get  at  the  source  of  the 
other  two-thirds  ? 

Some  of  the  words  composing  the  other  two-thirds  came 
from  the  French — the  Norman  French.  Must  I  study  the 
French  language  before  I  can  learn  the  meaning  of  these 
words  ? 

Some  of  the  words  of  the  other  two-thirds  come  from  Celtic 
sources,  some  from  Scandinavia,  some  from  the  land  of  the 
Moor,  some  from  the  Saracen,  some  from  the  native  tongues 
spoken  by  the  races  who  were  over-run  by  the  Germanic  tribes. 

Must  I  learn  each  of  these  mother-tongues  before  I  can  talk 
English? 

Then  we  have  a  few  expressive  words  which  we  get  from  the 
Indians  and  the  negroes. 

Must  I  study  the  savage  dialects  of  the  Eed  Man  and  the 
black  before  I 'can,  with  proper  intelligence,  fling  at  the  head 
of  the  jury  the  words  "squaw"  and  "tote?" 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  253 


This,  of  course,  is  the  ''Reduction  to  the  absurd,"  but  the 
case  warrants  it.  The  study  of  words  is  a  beautiful  study.  It 
is  one  which  can  be  sincerely  recommended  and  encouraged. 
There  is  no  issue  between  Mr.  Phelps  and  me  on  that. 

But  the  point  I  make  is,  that  such  a  study  of  words  is  not  a 
condition  precedent  to  becoming  a  tiptop,  all-round,  successful 
lawyer. 

"And  the  same  I  am  free  to  maintain." 

In  the  course  of  a  thorough  High  School  education  a  boy 
learns  just  as  many  words  as  he  knows  what  to  do  with.  If  he 
needs  more,  in  later  years,  there  is  the  Unabridged  Dictionary. 
But  he  will  not  need  more.  A  good  High  School  training  will 
give  him  absolutely  every  English  word  that  he  need  ever  use 
before  court  or  jury,  before  the  people  on  the  hustings  or  the 
Solons  in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Phelps  alludes  to  Grattan,  Pitt,  Brougham  and  Glad- 
stone. 

Those  names  neither  conflict  with  my  theory  nor  prove  his. 
Each  one  of  those  great  men  would  have  been  great  without 
Latin  and  Greek.  Their  knowledge  of  Latin  and  Greek  did 
not  make  them  what  they  were. 

God  made  them  great — not  the  schoolmaster. 

Patrick  Henry  was  not  only  their  superior  as  an  orator,  but 
he  was  superior  to  Brougham  and  Grattan  as  a  lawyer.  Pitt 
and  Gladstone  were  not  lawyers,  but  statesmen,  and  Henry's 
debates  with  Edmund,  Randolph  and  James  Madison  on  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1789  prove  him  the  equal  of 
Pitt  and  Gladstone  in  his  mastery  of  the  principles  of  govern- 
ment. 

Did  Shakespeare  understand  the  English  language? 

Mr.  Phelps  will  remember  that  the  man  to  whom  is  conceded 
the  first  place  among  the  intellectual  monarchs  of  the  human 
race,  was  a  country  boy  who  did  not  even  have  a  good  High 
School  education.  Did  he  not  know  how  to  use  English  words  ? 
Did  he  have  to  learn  Latin  to  know  his  own  tongue?  Milton 
and  Dr.  Sam  Johnson  were  laboriouslv  educated  in  Latin  and 
Greek.  They  clung  to  Latin  and  Greek  forms  and  derivatives 
throughout  their  lives. 

Shakespeare,  Goldsmith,  Byron,  Burns,  clung  to  English 
forms  and  English  words. 

Few  people  now  read  Milton  save  as  a  necessary  task; 
nobody  reads  Dr.  Johnson  at  all;  millions  of  people  read 
Shakespeare,  Goldsmith,  Byron  and  Burns. 

Lord  Macaulay  was  a  fine  scholar,  but  his  speech  was  Eng- 
lish, not  Latin-Greek-English. 

When  the  Edinburgh  cobbler  boasted  that  he  had  understood 
every  word  of  a  great  speech  which  Macaulay  had  just  made, 


254  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Macaulay  took  it  as  the  highest  compliment  which  the  cobbler 
could  have  paid  him. 

And  for  the  best  of  reasons. 

The  speaker  who  does  not  use  Avords  which  all  can  under- 
stand, does  not  know  his  business. 

The  lawyer  who  thinks  more  of  showing  off  his  big  words 
than  he  does  of  making  the  jury  catch  his  meaning,  will  lose 
his  case. 

Read  John  Bright 's  speeches — John  Bright,  who  was  a 
greater  orator  than  Gladstone  or  Pitt. 

Do  you  find  any  Latin-Greek-English?  No.  you  find 
English — brief,  strong,  clear  English;  English  which  cuts  like 
a  knife  when  he  wants  to  cut,  and  which  is  sweet  as  music 
when  he  wants  to  charm.  Read  the  speeches  of  Daniel  Web- 
ster, who  was  classed  by  Thomas  Carlyle  as  the  greatest  word- 
fighter  in  the  world.  Do  you  find  his  language  to  be  dependent 
upon  Latin  and  Greek  derivaties? 

To  the  highest  possible  degree  Webster's  speeches  are 
monuments  to  the  power,  grace,  force  and  endless  variety  of 
the  English  tongue. 

You  will  find  more  big  words  in  one  of  Grover  Cleveland's 
ponderous  "Messages,"  than  you  will  find  in  all  of  Daniel 
Webster's  speeches. 

Yet  Mr.  Phelps  would  hardly  contend  that  Cleveland  ranks 
with  Webster  as  a  scholar,  a  statesman,  an  orator  or  a  lawyer. 

Henry  Clay  had  no  classical  training,  but  no  man  of  his  day 
knew  better  how  to  use  the  English  language.  No  man  could 
stand  against  him  in  the  court-house  or  on  the  hustings;  and 
on  one  memorable  occasion  he  cowed  and  silenced  Rufus 
Choate  in  the  Senate — Choate  the  great  classical  scholar. 

It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated:  school-books  and  school- 
masters cannot  make  great  men. 

Andrew  Jackson  had  no  classical  education,  yet  he  put  to 
rout  the  combined  hosts  of  Webster,  Clay  and  Calhoun.  They 
had  the  better  schooling,  but  he  was  the  greater  man.  Before 
the  onset  of  his  resistless  purpose,  courage  and  sense  of  being 
Right,  the  scholars  went  down  like  broken  reeds. 

Consider  the  case  of  Charles  Dickens.  Where  did  he  learn 
how  to  use  the  English  language? 

He  had  almost  no  education,  so  far  as  the  school-house  was 
concerned.  As  a  student,  he  never  saw  the  inside  of  a  High 
School,  much  less  a  college.  Yet  who  excels  him  as  a  master 
of  expression?  Who  uses  the  English  language  with  finer 
effect? 

His  description  of  the  storm  at  sea  in  "David  Copperfield" 
is  the  sublimest  thing  of  its  sort  in  the  whole  range  of  litera- 
ture. 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


255 


"A  Child's  Dream  of  a  Star'"  is  a  prose  poem  which  needs 
no  classical  lore  to  make  it  perfect. 

His  Christmas  pieces  will  melt  hearts  as  long  as  sweetness 
and  tenderness  and  pity  abide  in  the  homes  of  men.  No 
English  was  ever  more  fitted  to  pathos,  humor,  scorn,  hatred, 
eloquence,  gentle  play  of  fancy  or  connected  narrative  of  fact. 

In  truth.  Charles  Dickens  was  so  absolute  a  master  of  the 
art  of  expressing  himself  in  the  English  language  as  to  draw 
to  his  feet,  in  loving  admiration,  the  whole  English-speaking 
world. 

And  he  did  not  learn  how  to  talk  and  write  at  a  college, 
either.  He  did  not  learn  English  by  studying  Latin,  and  learn 
Latin  by  studying  Greek.  Had  he  waited  for  all  that  he  might 
not  have  sprung  into  fame  at  twenty-four  by  writing  the 
"Pickwick  Papers."  Had  he  adopted  the  idea  of  Mr.  PhelpSj 
he  would  have  -pent  four  years  learning  dead  languages  and 
might  then  have  awakened  to  the  disagreeable  fact  that  the 
"morning-glories"  of  his  genius  had  begun  to  lose  their  fresh- 
ness. In  the  running  of  a  race,  it  is  possible  to  go  back  so  far 
to  get  a  start,  that  the  runner  is  tired  before  he  reaches  the 
starting-point. 

Consider,  likewise,  the  case  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

This  country-born  lad  had  almost  no  schooling  at  all.  He 
never  did  become,  in  any  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  a  scholar 
or  a  learned  man.  He  was  not  even  profoundly  versed  in  the 
law.  But  how  many  lawyers  of  Lincoln's  day  were  his  match 
in  the  court-room  I  How  many  of  our  scholars,  learned  men 
and  profound  jurist,  could  cope  with  him  on  the  stump? 
How  many  of  our  intellectual  and  cultured  people  could  write 
or  speak  the  English  language  so  well  \ 

I  do  not  now  recall  any  passage  in  the  writings  of  the 
scholarly  John  Quincv  Adam-  or  the  scholarly  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son which  will  compare  in  majestic  simplicity,  dignity,  force 
and  pathos  with  Lincoln's  concluding  paragraphs  in  his  first 
Inaugural,  and  his  memorable  brief  speech  at  Gettysburg. 

On  that  occasion  the  untutored  backwoodsman  soared  far 
and  away  beyond  and  above  the  most  cultured  of  scholars. 
Edward  Everett. 

"How  can  a  student  really  understand  Constitutional  law. 
the  great  questions  of  personal  liberty,  who  has  not  sought 
the  genesis  of  these  provisions  in  the  forests  of  Germany,  who 
has  not  traced  their  development  in  Holland  and  England, 
whence  we  have  received  them  as  a  precious  inheritance  ?" 

That  is  Mr.  Phelps'  second  question. 

A  student  will  not  thoroughly  understand  the  subjects 
named  unless  he  makes  a  study  of  them,  but  he  need  not  spend 
four  years  of  his  life  in  a  college  to  make  that  study.  To 


256  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


become  a  practical  lawyer,  the  student  has  already  been 
advised,  in  former  articles,  to  study  Blackstone,  Kent's  Com- 
mentaries, Greenleaf  on  Evidence  and  the  Code  of  his  own 
State. 

When  he  shall  have  mastered  these,  I  venture  the  statement 
that  he  will  be  able  to  attend  to  all  the  practice  he  is  likely  to 
get,  during  the  first  few  years  after  his  shingle  has  been  hung 
out. 

Of  course,  I  have  assumed  that  the  young  lawyer  will  con- 
tinue his  reading,  broaden  and  deepen  his  studies  all  the  while 
that  he  is  speaking  to  justices  of  the  peace  and  to  juries  about 
the  issues  involved  in  the  first  cases  he  will  get. 

The  average  Justice  of  the  Peace  is  not  an  expert  in  Ger- 
manic "genesis,"  nor  is  the  average  jury  greatly  influenced 
by  a  knowledge  of  the  "developments  in  Holland  and  Eng- 
land." 

The  mind  of  judges  and  juries  will  be  found  to  be  con- 
cerned mainly  with  prosaic,  practical,  almost  vulgar  con- 
siderations of  sworn  testimony  and  statute  law. 

Did  my  client  take  and  carry  away  the  personal  goods  of  the 
other  fellow  with  intent  to  steal  the  same? 

Did  my  client  say  of  and  concerning  the  other  fellow  the 
following  false  and  malicious  words,  to-wit: 

"You  are  a  d— d  thief?" 

Did  my  client  burn  the  ginhouse  of  Abe  Jones,  being  led 
thereto  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil  ? 

Did  my  client  take  possession  of  land  which  belonged  to 
someone  else,  refuse  to  surrender  the  same,  and  thus  compel 
John  Doe  to  arm  himself  for  another  tilt  against  Richard  Roe? 

Did  my  Sambo  steal  the  other  Sambo's  hog? 

Concrete  issues  like  these  will  engage  the  best  attention  of 
the  young  lawyer  from  the  first  day  that  he  opens  an  office, 
and  he  Avill  find  the  fewest  number  of  occasions  to  display  his 
knowledge  of  what  happened  in  Germany  and  Holland  a 
thousand  years  ago,  without  hurting  his  case. 

Abstract  questions  of  "personal  liberty"  cut  no  ice  in  the 
court-house,  and  the  petition  of  a  prisoner  to  be  allowed  to 
come  out  of  jail,  on  bond,  can  be  argued  for  all  it  is  worth  by  a 
lawyer  who  understands  that  particular  case,  no  matter  if  he 
has  not  chased  "the  genesis  of  these  provisions  in  the  forests 
of  Germany." 

"The  technical  rules  of  the  law  of  real  property"  are  laid 
down  in  Blackstone,  and  the  Feudal  system  is  therein  explained 
as  fully  as  a  practical  lawyer  needs  to  know  it. 

Hallam's  "Middle  Ages,"  Robertson's  "Charles  the  Fifth," 
and  such  works  as  Hallam's  "Constitutional  History  of  Eng* 
land,"  Tapp's    "History  of  Anglo-Saxon    Institutions"  are 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  257 


valuable  to  the  statesman  and,  in  some  respects,  to  the  lawyer, 
but  they  are  books  which  can  be  read  at  leisure,  and  at  home, 
while  the  young  lawyer  is  attending  to  the  practical  work  of 
his  profession.  Such  books  will  in  no  wise  help  him  to  win 
his  case  in  the  court-house. 

Practical  lawyers  will  bear  me  out  when  I  say  that  expert 
knowledge  of  Latin  and  Greek,  and  laborious  research  into 
Germanic  origins  of  the  great  principles,  had  no  more  to  do 
with  their  success  at  the  bar  than  a  scholastic  knowledge  of 
Botany,  of  Chemistry,  of  the  ethnological  status  of  the  negro, 
and  of  the  historic  genesis  of  the  turn-plow  and  the  mule,  has 
to  do  with  the  success  of  a  Southern  farmer  who  manages 
free  niggers  and  makes  buckle  and  tongue  meet,  by  steady 
attention  to  the  practical  details  of  farming. 


As  to  Orators  and  Oratory. 


A  great  orator  is  eloquent  by  reason  of  certain  inherent 
mental  and  emotional  qualities,  and  these  qualities  will  bring 
him  success  in  any  department  of  public  speaking.  To  say 
that  a  man  who  is  an  orator  of  the  first  class  would  be  eloquent 
in  the  pulpit  only  is,  in  my  judgment,  as  untenable  a  proposi- 
tion as  to  say  that  a  refined  lady  is  refined  only  in  her  own 
parlor. 

Intrinsic  qualities  are  inseparable  from  the  person:  they  go 
with  us.  Acquired  culture  may  be  lost,  our  power  to  use  it  may 
vary  with  the  accident  of  locality  and  circumstances,  but  a 
man  who  is  a  born  poet  will  make  verses  even  behind  a  plow, 
as  Burns  did ;  and  the  born  orator  will  be  eloquent  in  whatever 
field  he  goes — whether  that  of  lecturing,  law-pleading,  stump- 
speaking  or  preaching. 

I  do  not  say  that  the  born  orator  will  not  sometimes  fail. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  born  orator  who  will  make  the  very 
greatest  failures.  The  reasons  are  not  far  to  seek.  He  relies 
much  on  the  inspiration  of  the  occasion :  he  must  be  under  the 
spell  of  a  certain  amount  of  mental  irritation,  excitement  and 
exhiliration :  his  natural  faculties  must  get  into  a  glow,  a 
heat,  a  struggle  for  expression :  great  thoughts,  generous  feel- 
ings must  crowd  forward  for  utterance,  and  the  peculiar 
language  of  oratory  stands  ready  to  fold  its  drapery  around 
each  mortal  creation  as  the  inspiration  bodies  it  forth. 

Orators  of  the  first  class  must  have  the  faculty  of  composing 
instantaneously — of  creating  as  they  go. 

What  are  the  laws  of  this  mysterious  power  ? 

Nobody  knows.  It  may  come  when  least  expected:  it  may 
be  sought  in  vain  when  most  needed. 

The  man  of  talent,  capable  of  making  a  certain  sort  of 
speech,  can  always  make  that  sort  of  speech:  just  as  a  poet  oi 
a  certain  talented  class  may  manufacture  a  certain  number  of 
talented  verses,  at  any  time  he  may  see  fit  to  turn  the  grind- 
stone. 

But  the  man  of  genius  cannot  work  that  way.  He  cannot 
write  to  order  and  he  cannot  speak  to  order.  To  arouse  his 
peculiar  and  mysterious  mental  and  emotional  powers,  is  an 
absolute  prerequisite  to  his  success,  either  in  writing  or  speak- 
ing. Hence,  he  is  more  in  danger  of  making  failures  than  the 
man  of  talent. 

But  when  he  does  succeed  it  is  Shelley  rhapsodizing  on 
"The  Cloud:''  it  is  Coleridge  lifting  his  voice  in  the  Hymn  in 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  259 


the  Vale  of  Chamouni ;  it  is  Byron  penning  the  last  two  cantos 
of  "Childe  Harold;*'  it  is  Burns  wringing  his  hands  in  grief 
for  "Marv  in  Heaven;"  it  is  Poe  tracing  the  weird  lines  of 
"Eldorendo;"  it  is  Mirabeau  in  the  Assembly,  denouncing 
Bourbonism  on  the  one  hand  and  Sansculottism  on  the  other; 
it  is  Henry  before  the  Burgesses,  O'Connell  on  the  hustings, 
Wendell  Phillips  on  the  lecture  platform,  and  Sargeant 
Prentiss — everywhere. 

Oratory  like  Grattan's  had  no  arbitrary  limits  of  time,  place 
and  circumstances.  He  was  a  master  in  every  sphere  of  speech. 
O'Connell  was  supreme  at  the  bar,  on  the  hustings  and  in 
Parliament.  Gladstone  says  he  was  greatest  on  the  hustings, 
yet  in  the  British  Parliament,  where  his  audience  was  hostile, 
he  spoke  the  pen  out  of  the  hands  of  the  official  reporter — 
Charles  Dickens — and  the  record  was  blotted  with  tears  instead 
of  stenographic  notes. 

Wherever  Phillips  spoke  he  was  eloquent ;  wherever  Toombs 
and  Yancey  and  Ben  Hill  spoke  they  inflamed  the  hearts  of 
men. 

Henry  was  as  great  in  the  court-house  as  on  the  hustings; 
as  great  before  the  Legislature  and  before  Congress  as  he  had 
been  before  the  bench  when  "he  plead  against  the  parsons." 

And  where  was  it  that  Prentiss  found  a  realm  he  could  not 
conquer?  What  boundary  line  stayed  his  winged  feet?  He 
was  matchless  at  the  bar.  matchless  on  the  stump,  matchless 
in  Congress,  matchless  in  the  lecture  field — for  he  took,  at 
New  Orleans,  an  audience  which  Richard  Henry  Wilde  had 
soothed  into  somnolent  apathy  on  the  subject  of  Art,  and  in 
ten  minutes  had  electrified  it  into  cheers. 

"Hello !  Wilde  is  waking  up  !"  said  some  gentlemen  who  had 
been  in  the  audience,  and  who  had  stepped  out  to  get  a  drink, 
and  who  heard  a  sudden  burst  of  applause  from  the  theatre 
where  they  had  left  Wilde  speaking. 

"There  it  goes  again  !"  they  said  as  they  sipped  their  liquor, 
another  round  of  applause  having  come  thundering  from  the 
theatre. 

And  then,  as  they  put  their  glasses  down,  there  was  a  crash 
of  cheers  from  the  audience. 

"Hell!  that's  Prentiss!"  they  cried,  and  they  broke  for  the 
theatre  to  find  that  the  princely  orator.  Prentiss,  was  in  full 
career  of  inspired  speech,  clothing  "thoughts  that  breathe,  in 
words  that  burn" — upon  the  old,  old  subject  of  "Art." 

So  true  is  it  that  the  orator  is  born,  not  made ;  so  true  it  is 
that  the  orator  is  eloquent  because  he  was  born  that  way;  so 
true  is  it  that  it  comes  as  naturally  to  him  to  move  the  hearts 
and  minds  of  others  when  his  are  moved  as  it  does  to  a  bird 


10— Sketches 


260  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


to  sing  when  the  sunlight  of  spring  flashes  over  the  awakening 
woods. 

Both  Webster  and  Clay  were  powerful  at  the  bar  and  on  the 
hustings  as  they  were  in  the  Senate;  and  Toombs  was  never 
greater  than  when  he  lectured  in  Tremont  Temple  on  slavery 
or  in  Georgia,  later,  on  "Magna  Charta." 

When  an  orator  devotes  his  life  to  one  department  of  speak- 
ing he  may  not  eminently  succeed  in  others,  if  he  comes  to  them 
late.  This  is  because  his  mind  may  have  acquired  a  certain 
rigidity  of  thought  and  mode  of  expression;  but  I  cannot 
think  that  one  who  is  really  endowed  with  the  gift  of  eloquence 
would  find  himself  bereft  of  it  simply  because  he  stepped  from 
the  hustings  to  the  lecture  hall. 


Socialism  and  One  of  its  Great  Books 


Daniel  Webster  declared  that  the  novels  of  Charles  Dickens 
had  done  more  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  English  poor 
than  had  been  done  by  all  the  statesmen  Great  Britain  had  sent 
to  Parliament. 

The  time  may  come  when  some  American  author,  moved  by 
the  same  broad  and  deep  and  tender  sympathy  for  the  suffering 
of  the  human  under-dog,  will  bring  to  the  task  a  genius  com- 
parable to  that  of  the  uneducated  Dickens,  and  will  write  the 
death-warrant  of  intolerable  conditons  in  this  country,  just  as 
Dickens  wrote  it  in  England. 

And  it  may  be  that  the  man  and  the  task  have  already  met. 
It  may  be  that  oppressed  humanity  in  America  has  already 
found  the  pleader  whose  appeal  will  be  irresistible,  the  advo- 
cate whose  impeachment  of  heartless  commercialism  will  rouse 
the  soul  of  the  nation  and  sound  the  death-knell  of  legalized 
Greed  and  Murder. 

"The  Jungle"  is  a  great  book ;  possibly  the  greatest  book  of 
its  kind  that  any  American  has  written.  The  author  displays 
an  amazing  mastery  of  details,  of  appalling  facts,  of  horrible 
conditions.  Taking  the  reader  in  hand,  he  leads  him  through 
the  under-world  of  the  laboring  and  non-laboring  poor,  and 
when  the  story  has  been  finished,  the  reader  feels  that  a  spirit 
akin  to  that  of  Dante  has  shown  him  through  the  black  regions 
of  another  Hell. 

The  story  begins  with  a  marriage  and  a  marriage  feast, 
conducted  after  the  Lithuanian  fashion;  for  the  people  whose 
lives  and  adventures  we  are  to  follow  are  immigrants  from 
Lithuania. 

This  description  of  the  marriage  festival,  with  its  tumultu- 
ous hilarity,  deep  drinking,  heavy  eating,  promiscuous  danc- 
ing, and  tipsy  quarrels  is  a  masterpiece. 

Then  we  go  with  the  young  married  couple  to  their  home- 
life  and  their  work.  Jurgis,  the  man,  enters  the  slaughter- 
house of  the  Beef  Trust.  Ona,  the  wife,  also  gets  work  in  the 
stock-yards.   The  pay  is  small  and  the  work  is  hard. 

The  author  reveals  the  innermost  workings  of  the  Beef 
Trust.  Not  a  single  sickening  detail,  apparently,  has  escaped 
him.  We  are  shown  the  system  upon  which  the  packers 
operate.  The  frauds  that  are  perpetrated  upon  the  public,  the 
diseased  hogs  and  cows  that  are  used,  the  collusion  between 
the  Government  inspectors  and  the  packers,  the  chemicals 
which  are  applied  to  spoiled  meat  to  give  it  the  appearance  of 


262 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


being  sound,  the  dead  rats  and  the  rat  dung  which  go  into  the 
vats  along  with  the  rest,  the  foul  water  in  which  the  workmen 
have  washed  themselves,  and  have  spat,  and  yet  which  goes 
into  the  vats  along  with  the  rest ;  the  occasional  workman  who 
falls  into  boiling  grease  to  his  death  and  whose  body  goes 
along  with  the  hog  grease  into  the  making  of  "Prime  Leaf 
Lard." 

There  is  no  language  which  can  reproduce  the  picture  of 
these  stock  yards  as  drawn  by  Mr.  Sinclair.  One  must  read 
"The  Jungle." 

Zola  is  vivid  and  impressive  in  his  description  of  the  life- 
work  of  the  toiling  French  in  the  mine,  in  the  market,  on  the 
farm,  in  the  laundry;  but  Zola  never  surpassed  the  realistic 
portrayal  of  life-work  in  the  Chicago  stock-yards  as  drawn  by 
Mr.  Sinclair. 

On  the  whole,  I  doubt  whether  this  portion  of  "The  Jungle," 
has  its  equal  anywhere.  His  sketch  is  so  complete,  so  broadly 
conceived,  so  minutely  finished  that  it  approaches  perfection. 
He  not  only  shows  the  Beef  Trust  in  its  own  mechanism  as  a 
complete  machine,  but  he  shows  its  relations  to  the  consumer, 
its  relations  to  local  and  national  politics,  its  relations  to  its 
employees  and  its  relations  to  the  courts.  The  characters  in 
the  book  are  real  men  and  women,  not  lay  figures. 

Jurgis  is  very  human,  so  is  Marija,  so,  also,  in  a  less  degree, 
is  Ona.  The  little  fiddler  is  true  to  life,  and  one  regrets  that 
•Mr.  Sinclair  did  not  make  greater  use  of  him.  He  might  have 
been  instrumental  in  putting  into  "The  Jungle"  an  occasional 
burst  of  sunlight,  which  the  book  needed  to  relieve  its  un- 
broken gloom. 

Even  in  Dickens'  most  heartrending  stories,  there  is  always 
the  relief  of  humor,  the  play  of  light  and  shade.  In  "The 
Jungle"  there  is  no  lifting  of  the  sable  pall.  Dark,  darker, 
darkest  is  the  trend  of  the  narrative,  and  in  this  Mr.  Sinclair 
is  at  fault. 

The  j oiliest  frolics  that  were  ever  known  were  those  in 
which  the  Southern  slaves  used  to  celebrate  their  holidays,  or 
their  Saturday  nights,  or  their  Christmas  week.  In  this  story 
of  four  hundred  pages,  dealing  with  the  laboring  class  in 
Chicago,  there  is  no  scene  of  merriment  at  all,  after  the  nar- 
rative gets  under  way. 

Does  Mr.  Sinclair  mean  to  teach  that  the  wage-system  of 
today  is  that  much  worse  than  the  old  slave-system  of  the 
Southern  States?  Is  the  present  wage-system  so  much  more 
of  a  heart-breaker  and  soul-killer  than  that  against  which  Mrs. 
Stowe  launched  her  immortal  book? 

With  Jurgis  and  Ona  it  is  tragedy  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end.    They  begin  by  investing  their  little  surplus  of  cash 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  263 


in  part  payment  for  a  house.  They  sign  notes  for  the  unpaid 
purchase  money,  and  these  are  made  in  the  form  of  rent  notes 
so  that  Jurgis  can  be  quickly  put  out  if  he  fails  in  the  install- 
ments. 

Then  they  have  an  extravagant  marriage  feast  which  costs 
some  $300.  In  Lithuania  the  custom  is  that  the  guests  pay 
for  the  feast  by  voluntary  contributions.  In  Chicago  that 
custom  does  not  prevail.  The  consequence  is  the  loss  of  all  the 
ready  money  of  the  young  couple  and  a  debt  of  $100. 

Debt  is  hell !  and  they  had  run  into  it  on  their  wedding 
night. 

Then  begins  the  struggle;  then  they  enter  the  jungle,  from 
which  they  are  never  able  to  escape. 

Ona  does  not  know  how  to  apply  for  a  transfer  on  the  street- 
car, is  carried  on  a  block  or  so,  has  to  walk  to  her  work  in  the 
rain,  and  suffers  in  health.  A  child  is  born ;  Ona  is  never  quite 
herself  again.  Jurgis  slips  on  the  flooring  while  at  his  work 
and  sprains  his  ankle.  Neglecting  the  limb,  and  continuing 
to  use  it,  he  pays  a  cruel  penalty ;  he  is  bedridden  a  long  while. 
Poverty  pinches.  Ona  becomes  frightened,  and  she  yields  to 
the  lust  of  one  of  the  bosses  in  the  yards — Phil  Connor.  She 
does  this  to  save  her  loved  ones  from  starvation. 

Jurgis  at  length  limps  back  into  the  struggle  for  bread,  and 
soon  discovers  that  Ona  has  gone  wrong. 

'•The  Jungle"  becomes  painfully  dramatic  during  this  epi- 
sode, and  the  power  of  the  author  is  strongly  felt. 

In  blind  rage,  the  husband  rushes  into  the  stock-yards  and, 
coming  upon  the  seducer  of  his  wife,  strikes  him  down,  and 
sets  his  teeth  in  his  face.  Jurgis  is  torn  away  before  much 
harm  has  been  clone  to  Connor,  but  not  before  irreparable 
harm  has  been  done  to  Jurgis.  Poor  fellow,  he  is  condemned 
to  a  term  of  imprisonment  for  the  assault  which  he  has  com- 
mitted. From  pride  or  shame  he  conceals  his  provocation, 
and  to  the  judge  who  sentences  him,  the  case  appears  to  be 
that  of  an  unjustifiable  assault  and  battery. 

When  his  sentence  has  been  served  out,  Jurgis  goes  back  to 
his  home — to  find  another  family  in  the  house.  The  monthly 
instalment  has  not  been  paid,  the  land  company  has  fore- 
closed, and  the  wife  and  child  of  Jurgis  have  disappeared. 

The  story,  then,  of  how  Jurgis  finds  where  Ona  is,  the  story 
of  how  she  dies  in  the  agonies  of  child-birth,  is  a  climax  of 
tragic  narrative.  The  old  Dutch  mid-wife  is  only  seen  and 
heard  for  a  few  minutes,  but  she  makes  her  impression  upon 
the  mind  as  distinctly  as  Sairey  Gamp  made  hers. 

Then  Jurgis  takes  to  drink  and  "the  Jungle"  grows  denser 
than  ever.   By  turns,  he  plays  many  parts.    He  is  a  tramp,  a 


264  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

farm-hand,  a  union  man,  a  strike-breaker,  a  gambler,  a  robber, 
a  ward-heeler,  a  beggar,  a  sub-boss,  a  hotel  porter. 

When  Jurgis  betrayed  the  labor  union  and  became  hench- 
man to  a  politician  "with  a  pull,"  he  found  himself  in  clover. 
For  a  time  he  had  all  the  money  he  needed. 

Then  he  got  drunk,  met  Phil  Connor  again,  assaulted  him 
again,  and  went  to  prison  again. 

Connor  "stood  in"  with  the  man  who  had  the  "pull,"  and 
poor  Jurgis  was  sacrificed. 

The  first-born  of  Jurgis  and  Ona  is  a  fine  boy  who  is 
drowned  in  the  gutter  of  a  neglected  street.  Another  boy 
belonging  to  the  group  drinks  too  much  beer,  goes  to  sleep  in 
a  ramshackle  building,  is  locked  in  for  the  night,  and  is 
devoured  by  rats. 

Marija — the  most  life-like  and  attractive  woman  in  the  book 
— deliberately  enters  a  house  of  prostitution,  as  the  only  way 
to  make  a  living  for  those  dependent  upon  her. 

Mr.  Sinclair  throws  the  light  upon  the  life  of  fallen  women 
in  the  great  cities,  until  that  portion  of  our  social  hell  is  as 
lurid  as  the  devil  himself  could  want  it. 

During  the  progress  of  events  up  to  the  time  that  the  home- 
less, job-less,  starving  Jurgis  stumbles  into  the  Socialist  meet- 
ing, the  author  has  held  his  reader  in  a  grip  of  steel. 

my? 

Because  his  feet  have  been  on  the  earth  all  the  while,  and 
he  has  been  dealing  with  actualities.  The  reader  has  felt  in  his 
heart  of  hearts  that  men,  women  and  children  in  Chicago  can 
and  do  toil,  suffer,  and  perish  just  that  way.  He  can  not  quite 
believe  that  all  the  bad  things  happened  to  any  one  man,  as 
they  did  to  J urgis,  but  he  knows  that  they  might  have  done  so. 

All  the  ravenous  beasts  of  the  jungle  do  not  pull  down  and 
devour  the  same  lost  traveler,  but  each  and  all  of  them  might. 
But  at  the  very  moment  when  Mr.  Sinclair  pulls  the  reader 
into  that  Socialist  meeting,  his  hold  begins  to  relax.  The 
reader  immediately  feels  that  he  is  leaving  solid  ground.  He 
intuitively  draws  back.  He  doesn't  willingly  go  up  into  the 
air  with  the  orator  who  is  performing  on  the  platform. 
Indeed,  the  reader  almost  feels  resentment  against  the  author. 

Was  this  what  you  were  driving  at  all  the  while? 

Did  you  harrow  up  my  soul  with  all  those  pathetic  details 
just  to  make  a  Socialist  out  of  me? 

Did  you  think  to  capture  me  as  easily  as  you  captured  your 
poor,  stupid,  blundering  Jurgis? 

Couldn't  you  turn  the  reader  loose  without  syringing  a 
Socialist  campaign  document  into  him? 

Dear  me  alive !  I  can  step  into  any  book-store  and  buy, 
for  a  few  pennies,  as  good  a  treatise  on  Socialism  as  you  have 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


265 


tacked  on  to  the  end  of  your  novel — why.  then,  talk  "shop"' 
in  the  novel  I 

Suppose  Mrs.  Stowe  had  diluted  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  with 
a  homily  on  Emancipation:  suppose  she  had  caught  the  reader 
by  the  hair  of  the  head,  pulled  him  into  one  of  the  Abolition 
Societies  and  drenched  him  with  Abolition  harangues:  sup- 
pose that  she  had  explained  to  the  bored  reader  how  those 
Michigan  reformers  met  at  Jackson,  on  July  6.  1854.  and  set 
in  motion  the  organization  that  afterward  became  the  Repub- 
lican Party :  and  suppose  she  had  inflicted  upon  the  reader  a 
description  of  the  leading  personages  and  newspapers  engaged 
in  the  Abolition  cause,  together  with  an  explanation  of  the 
working  methods  of  the  Abolition  Societies:  and  then  sup- 
pose she  had  interlarded  the  closing  chapters  with  election 
returns,  and  had  wound  up  her  book  with  the  campaign  cry  of 
"Xew  York  is  ours  !  New  York  is  ours  I" — would  she  not  have 
spoilt  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin?" 

Mrs.  Stowe  put  everlasting  human  interest  and  pathos  into 
her  book,  by  making  Uncle  Tom  the  victim  of  the  system 
against  which  her  pen  was  inspired.  The  martyrdom  of 
Uncle  Tom  is  left  to  do  its  own  work  in  rousing  the  passions 
of  men  against  the  system  which  took  his  life. 

Mr.  Sinclair  wrote  a  book  to  prove  that  the  system  of  today 
drags  the  wage-earner  down  and  crushes  him.  Consequently, 
he  should  have  made  Jurgis  a  victim,  a  martyr.  As  actually 
happens  in  our  great  cities.  Jurgis  should  have  fallen  and  died 
of  exhaustion  while  vainly  seeking  a  job:  or  he  should  have 
been  found,  some  wintry  morning,  frozen  in  some  wretched 
alley,  or  under  the  arch  of  some  bridge  where  he  had  curled 
himself  up  for  sleep. 

Such  things  happen  all  over  the  East.  Xorth  and  Northwest, 
where  our  Protective  System  has  been  at  work  for  one  hundred 
years,  levying  its  contributions  of  billions  of  dollars  upon  the 
American  consumer,  in  order  that  American  capitalists  may 
be  able  to  pay  American  laborers  good  wages. 

When  Mrs.  Stowe  started  out  to  fire  the  North  against  the 
South,  she  sprinkled  blood  in  its  face — the  life-blood  of  Uncle 
Tom. 

The  novels  of  Charles  Dickens  had  already  blazed  this  trail, 
and  Mrs.  Stowe  modeled  her  books  on  those  of  the  greatest 
Master  of  Reform-Fiction  tin-  world  has  ever  seen.  With  the 
victims  of  a  system  does  Dickens  batter  down  the  walls  of 
that  system. 

Charles  Reade  pursues  the  same  method  when  he  assails  the 
awful  abuses  of  the  private  mad-houses. 

With  these  illustrious  examples  of  how  to  do  it.  before 
him.  Mr.  Sinclair's  "less  of  the  trail"  is  the  more  surprising. 


266  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


"The  Jungle"  was  written  with  a  definite  purpose — to  show 
that  there  is  no  escape  for  a  wage-slave  under  the  present  sys- 
tem, save  in  Socialism.  It  is  certainly  a  curious  thing  that  the 
ruin  of  the  people  in  Mr.  Sinclair's  book  is  not  due  to  the 
wage-system,  but  to  their  own  mistakes  and  misdeeds.  "The 
Jungle"  does  prove  that  the  life  of  a  wage-earner  is  hard, 
that  the  employers  are  unsympathetic,  harsh,  exacting,  dis- 
honest; but  "The  Jungle"  does  not  prove  that  the  wage- 
earner  is  crushed  to  death. 

The  first  great  mistake  made  by  Jurgis  and  Ona  was  in 
buying  a  house  which  they  thought  was  new,  healthy  and  fair- 
priced,  when  in  fact  it  was  old,  unhealthy  and  over-priced. 

The  wage-system  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  first  huge 
blunder,  which  proved  to  be  the  mill-stone  around  the  necks 
of  this  poor  couple. 

A  man  who  cannot  tell  a  new  house  from  an  old  one,  is  a 
lamb  whom  the  wolves  will  eat,  sooner  or  later. 

The  second  great  mistake  of  Jurgis  and  Ona  was  that 
extravagant  wedding  debauch,  with  its  sweeping  away  of  all 
their  cash,  and  its  plunging  of  them  into  a  debt  of  one  hundred 
dollars.  Think  of  a  poor  wage-slave  spending  three  hundred 
dollars  to  furnish  stewed  duck,  white  cake,  unlimited  ham, 
potatoes,  macaroni,  bologna  sausages,  rice,  milk,  candy,  penny- 
buns,  foaming  pitchers  of  beer,  a  free-whisky  bar,  and  a  paid 
string-band  to  play  all  night ! 

The  extravagance  of  this  bestial  indulgence  was  enough  in 
itself  to  have  swamped  the  small  life-boat  of  these  two  foreign- 
ers, who  were  so  ill-fitted  in  a  variety  of  ways  for  the  complex 
and  intense  struggle  for  existence  in  such  a  city  as  Chicago. 

But  for  these  two  mistakes  of  the  young  couple,  there  would 
have  been  money  on  hand  while  Jurgis  was  laid  up  with  a 
sprained  ankle;  and  his  wife  would  not  have  felt  that  she 
faced  the  alternative  of  prostitution  or  starvation. 

The  non  sequitur,  in  the  hands  of  the  average  Socialist,  is 
just  as  good  a  piece  of  logic  as  he  wants. 

Says  the  average  Socialist,  "This  is  wrong — therefore 
Socialism  is  right." 

In  this  way  he  can  prove  anything — and  so  can  you. 

Houses  of  ill-fame  are  wrong:  the  Christian  States  all 
tolerate  houses  of  ill-fame :  Turkey  has  no  houses  of  ill-fame ; 
therefore  Turkey  is  a  better  country  than  any  of  the  Christian 
States. 

Is  that  logic?  Compared  to  the  reasoning  of  the  average 
Socialist,  it  is  most  admirable  logic. 

Bar-rooms  are  bad:  the  Christian  Nations  tolerate  bar- 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


267 


rooms :  there  are  no  bar-rooms  in  Turkey :  therefore  the 
Christian  Nations  are  worse  than  Turkey. 

With  logic  of  this  kind.  I  blow  mine  opponent  out  of  the 
water  in  spite  of  his  best  efforts  to  keep  in  the  swim. 

The  conclusion  arrived  at  in  the  two  examples  given,  namely, 
that  Turkey  is  a  better  country  than  any  Christian  land,  is 
what  the  logic-choppers  call  a  mm  sequitur. 

That  is  to  say.  it  does  not  foMow  that  Turkey  is  better  than 
the  Christian  Nations  because  she  has  no  brothels  or  bar- 
rooms. 

But  the  vast  preponderance  of  Socialist  argument  is  based 
upon  the  non  seqmtwr.  They  point  to  this,  and  to  that,  and  to 
the  other,  and  they  -ay.  "Those  things  are  wrong:  therefore 
we  must  adopt  Socialism."  My  contention  is  that  the  con- 
clusion does  not  follow  the  facts. 

A.  B.  gets  sick :  he  needs  physic :  three  doctors  come  upon 
him.  the  Allopath,  the  Homeopath,  the  Osteopapth — while  the 
Christian  Scientist,  and  the  Faith  Curist.  and  the  Mental  Sug- 
gestionist  hover,  near  by,  ready  to  pounce  down. 

Each  one  of  those  Healers  of  the  Sick,  being  permitted  to 
speak,  will  say:  "You  are  sick:  you  are  entitled  to  good 
health:  therefore,  mv  method  of  healing  will  effect  a  cure." 

Which  of  those  Schools  of  Medicine  has  been  tried  and 
found  wanting — absolutely  and  hopelessly  \  Whichever  that 
is.  that  is  the  one  which  the  sick  man  had  better  let  alone. 
And  it  is  Socialism  that  has  been  tried  and  found  wanting. 

No  matter  what  frill-  and  flounces,  laces  and  embroideries, 
may  be  placed  upon  Socialism,  let  no  man  doubt  for  an  instant 
that  the  reason  why  the  Have-nots,  the  poor,  embrace  it  is  that 
they  understand  it  to  mean  an  equal  division  among  all  men 
of  all  kinds  of  property. 

"Collective  ownership"  is  to  take  the  place  of  individual 
ownership,  and  all  those  who  now  own  nothing  are  to  be  given 
an  equal  share  with  those  who  now  own  everything. 

The  Astor  estate  is  not  the  only  one  to  be  confiscated,  divided 
up  and  handed  around :  the  fortunes  of  the  Vanderbilts.  the 
Goulds,  and  the  Standard  Oil  group  are  not  the  only  ones  to  be 
seized  and  distributed:  every  house  and  lot.  every  garden  and 
farm,  every  small  accumulation  of  money  or  chattels,  is  to  be 
taken  away  from  those  who  have  earned  it.  or  inherited  it. 
and  there  is  to  be  a  glorious  universal-brotherhood  division  of 
everything  among  the  good  and  the  bad.  the  weak  and  the 
strong,  the  white  and  the  black. 

The  meanest  thug  on  the  Bowery,  the  filthiest  harlot  of  the 
Tenderloin,  will  be  siven  an  equal  share  with  the  worthiest 
laborer  in  the  field  of  honest  industry,  and  with  the  virtuous 


268  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

woman,  whose  pure  life  and  lofty  character  are  the  saving 
power  of  the  human  race. 

The  most  vicious  negro  that  ever  lurked  in  the  bushes  by 
the  road  to  clutch  the  innocent  white  girl  as  she  comes  from 
school — to  clutch  her  and  drag  her  into  the  woods,  to  leave 
her  torn,  bleeding,  dying,  the  victim  of  his  brutish  lust — will 
have  just  the  same  share,  in  all  the  accumulated  wealth  of  the 
age,  as  will  be  had  by  the  very  best  man  on  earth. 

"Collective  ownership"  has  its  meaning,  and  that  meaning 
cannot  be  shirked. 

No  matter  how  much  difference  there  may  be  in  the  Tomor- 
row of  Socialism,  in  its  Today,  when  it  shall  be  inaugurated 
as  a  system,  all  things  must  be  owned  Collectively;  and  that 
means  that  the  high  and  the  low  come  to  a  common  level;  the 
good  and  the  bad  start  even;  the  idle  and  the  industrious 
share  and  share  alike;  the  illiterate  and  the  learned,  the  capa- 
ble and  the  incompetent,  the  fool  and  the  wise  man,  the  virgin 
and  the  troll,  the  negro  and  the  white,  all  come  to  the  Uni- 
versal Brotherhood  pot,  and  ladle  out  an  equal  porringerful 
of  pottage. 

God !  What  a  sordid,  sickening  dead-level !  What  an 
enforced  equalizing  of  all  men  and  all  women,  in  a  world 
where  God  never  made  two  grains  of  sand,  two  leaves  of  the 
forest,  two  birds  of  the  air,  two  fish  of  the  sea,  two  beasts  of 
the  field  exactly  alike. 

Only  in  a  political  sense  can  anyone  even  dream  of  two 
men  being  equal,  for  our  eyes,  our  common  sense,  tell  us  that 
such  a  thing  as  equality  in  strength,  capacity,  character,  or  in 
the  elements  and  achievements  of  manhood  has  no  existence 
among  men. 

Socialism  proceeds  upon  the  idea  that  equality  is  there,  or 
can  be  put  there :  and  the  effort  to  prove  that  the  idea  is  cor- 
rect has  been  made  time  and  again  and  again.  It  was  not  only 
tried  among  the  Ancients,  but  it  has  been  tried  in  modern 
times  and  it  was  tried  by  the  colonists  who  first  settled  in 
North  America. 

Failure,  dismal  failure  has  been  the  result  of  every  experi- 
ment. Why?  Because  Human  Nature  is  radically,  eternally 
different  from  what  the  Socialist  assume  it  to  be. 

If  all  men  were  equal,  and  all  were  good,  Socialism  would 
be  unnecessary,  even  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Socialist. 

Give  us  absolute  equality  and  universal  goodness,  and  we 
don't  need  anything  but  a  little  time  to  reach  an  equal  dis- 
tribution of  wealth  and  an  era  of  Peace  on  Earth  and  Good 
Will  to  Men. 

Mr.   Sinclair  takes  no  account   of  the  extent  to  which 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


269 


voluntary  conduct  brings  suffering  and  ruin  upon  the  human 
race. 

For  example,  he  dwells  with  passionate  earnestness  upon 
the  grinding  cruelty  of  the  employers  of  wage-earners,  but  he 
makes  no  mention  of  the  immense  sums  of  money  spent  every 
year  for  intoxicating  liquors. 

Our  national  drink-bill  has  reached  the  almost  incredible 
total  of  one  billion  and  four  hundred  millions  of  dollars ! 

Think  of  that,  Mr.  Sinclair.  Will  men  and  women  drink 
less  under  Socialism  ? 

Then  consider  the  enormous  national  waste  in  tobacco. 

Lavishly  extravagant  as  our  National  Government  is,  it  but 
reflects  the  extravagance  of  the  people. 

On  liquor  and  tobacco  we  squander  enough  to  carry  comfort 
to  every  suffering  man.  woman  and  child  in  America. 

Will  the  people.  Mr.  Sinclair,  quit  using  tobacco  when 
Socialism  rules  the  land? 

Once  more — consider  the  gambling  habit.  See  how  much  is 
lost  in  small  games  of  chance,  as  well  as  in  speculations  on  the 
Stock  Exchange. 

The  one  gaming-hell  of  Monte  Carlo  "cleared"  more  than 
$5,000,000  last  year.  There  are  thousands  of  similar  establish- 
ments. How  much  money  do  you  suppose  is  lost  to  these 
establishments  every  year,  by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  losers? 

Also  consider  the  lottery-ticket  gambling,  the  race-track 
gambling,  the  bucket-shop  gambling:  who  can  guess  how 
many  hard-earned  dollars  are  lost  every  year  in  these  gaining 
devices  by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  losers? 

Will  the  gambling  fever  be  taken  out  of  the  blood  of  men 
by  Socialism? 

No  study  of  social  and  industrial  conditions  is  complete 
unless  allowance  be  made  for  evils  which  exist  by  reason  of 
the  voluntary  acts  of  men  and  women. 

No  system  of  government  or  of  industrial  organization,  can 
possibly  take  away  from  the  human  race  those  elemental 
passions,  that  mixture  of  Good  and  Evil,  which  have  been 
there  ever  since  the  dawn  of  Time. 

No  system  of  laws  will  save  the  unsuspecting  dupe  from 
the  sharper,  or  protect  the  honest  man  from  the  thief,  nor  the 
woman  who  is  weak  from  the  strong  man  inflamed  by  lust. 

"The  Jungle"  was  meant  to  be  an  indictment  against  our 
industrial  system.  But  it  isn't.  "The  Jungle"  succeeds  in 
showing  the  evils  brought  about  by  overcrowding  in  the 
centres  of  population.  Mr.  Sinclair  has  simply  demonstrated 
the  truth  of  what  Adam  Smith  wrote  in  "The  Wealth  of 
Nations/'   If  the  labor  market  be  overstocked,  wages  fall.  If 


270  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


in  the  labor  market,  the  supply  of  labor  be  less  than  the 
demand,  wages  rise. 

Mr.  Sinclair  demonstrates  this  to  perfection.  "The  Jungle" 
tells  us  that  so  long  as  there  were  more  applicants  for  jobs 
than  there  were  jobs,  wages  were  at  starvation  figures;  but 
when  the  strike  came  on,  and  the  supply  of  labor  was  less 
than  the  demand,  wages  became  accordingly  high.  In  fact, 
the  wage-earner  then  named  his  own  price,  and  the  packers 
had  to  give  it. 

That  condition  prevails  throughout  the  South  at  this  time. 
The  demand  for  labor  is  greater  than  the  supply,  and  the 
negro  in  the  cotton  patch  works  upon  his  own  terms.  He 
comes  nearer  to  getting  all  that  his  labor  produces  than  any 
other  laborer  in  America  or  in  Europe.  The  Southern  States 
could,  right  now,  absorb  and  employ,  at  good  wages,  every 
surplus  laborer  in  the  United  States.  Georgia  could  put  to 
profitable  work  every  surplus  laborer  in  New  York. 

Into  Florida,  where  I  spent  the  past  winter,  Mr.  Sinclair 
could  drain  off  the  entire  labor-surplus  of  Chicago.  Upon  the 
railroad  which  Mr.  Flagler  is  building  southward  from 
Miami,  20,000  men  could  find  jobs  at  good  wages.  In  the 
truck  farms,  in  the  orange  groves,  in  the  lumber  camps,  the 
work  is  clamoring  for  the  workmen.  The  climate  is  ideal, 
natural  food-products  abound,  and  the  pay  for  a  nine-hour 
day,  at  the  commonest  kind  of  work,  is  $1.25  per  day. 

Can  Mr.  Sinclair  draw  into  these  fields  of  industry  the 
surplus  which  gluts  the  labor-market  of  the  cities?  No. 
Neither  he  nor  anyone  else  can  do  it.  The  attempt  has  been 
made  often,  and  it  fails  every  time !  Flagler  brought  great 
numbers  of  New  York  City  men  down  here  and  put  them  to 
work  on  his  railroad.  They  have  quit  and  are  going  back. 
You  can  see  them  tramping  northward  in  sullen,  sinister 
gangs  of  fifteen  and  twenty.  They  yearn  for  the  city.  They 
crave  the  city  crowds,  city  noise,  city  amusements,  city  dissi- 
pations. The  quiet,  the  solitude,  the  monotony  of  the  country 
wear  them  out  :  they  must  get  back  to  riproaring  Chicago, 
Philadelphia.  New  York.  Thus,  like  moths  struggling  for  a 
chance  to  singe  their  wings,  these  fascinated  human  beings 
rush  into  the  large  cities,  drawn  by  a  mixture  of  motives,  and 
they  create  that  glut  in  the  labor  market  which  is  partly 
responsible  for  the  conditions  so  vividly  set  forth  in  "The 
Jungle." 

It  is  clear  to  my  mind  that  we  need  not  go  to  Socialism  to 
find  remedies  for  everything  that  is  remediable  in  our 
industrial  and  political  system. 

In  the  big  cities  two  men  compete  for  one  job;  in  the  rural 
communities  two  jobs  compete  for  one  man.    Surely  that  is  a 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  271 

problem  which  may  be  remedied,  provided  the  willingness  to 
work  can  be  made  to  overcome  the  inclination  to  live  in  the 
big  cities. 

If  city  life  presents  such  irresistible  fascinations  that  men 
will  persist  in  crowding  into  the  already  overcrowded  centres 
of  population,  what  can  you  do?  How  will  Socialism  manage 
to  work  the  miracle  of  supplying  two  men  with  a  job  where 
there  is  only  one  job? 

Mr.  Sinclair  lays  much  stress  upon  the  nasty  work  which  is 
done  in  the  stock-yards.  He  uses  language  which  the  reviewers 
consider  unquotable  in  describing  the  butchering  of  hogs  and 
cattle  and  the  making  up  of  the  carcass,  entrails,  etc.,  into  all 
sorts  of  merchantable  products,  including  fertilizers.  The 
fertilizer  making  is  peculiarly  repulsive  in  its  nastiness. 

Well,  fertilizer  is  a  right  good  thing  in  its  place ;  and  I  rise 
to  inquire  whether  Socialism  prohibits  fertilizers?  If  so,  let 
us  know,  so  that  we  can  get  our  gardens,  fields,  etc..  manured 
up,  before  Socialism  cuts  us  off  from  the  bases  of  supply.  But, 
even  if  Socialism  permits  us  to  assist  nature  with  extra  plant- 
food,  will  not  the  making  of  fertilizers  be  about  the  same  thing 
that  it  is  now? 

The  work  is  nasty,  of  course.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  nasty 
work  which  necessity  compels  people  to  do,  or  to  have  done. 

Mr.  Sinclair  talks  quite  literally  about  the  guts  of  hogs  and 
cows,  and  the  nastiness  involved  in  handling  the  same.  I 
fully  agree  with  him.  The  work  is  not  nice  work.  But  will 
Socialism  bring  about  such  a  change  in  the  habits  and  food  of 
cows  and  hogs  that  the  guts  can  be  cleaned  in  the  front  room, 
as  a  part  of  the  evening's  pastime,  while  we  listen  to  the 
phonograph  or  the  pianola  ? 

If,  under  Socialism,  the  same  repulsive  work  will  have  to  be 
done  which  we  now  have  to  hire  someone  else  to  do,  what  will 
be  the  process  of  selecting  the  fellow  who  must  go  out  and 
clean  the  guts? 

It  seems  to  me  that  when  Socialism  selects  the  poet  or  the 
musician,  or  the  artist  or  scholar,  and  orders  him  into  the 
fertilizer  department,  the  chain  of  Universal  Brotherhood  will 
snap  in  a  very  disconcerting  manner. 

If,  under  Socialism,  each  man  can  be  what  he  pleases,  no 
one  will  do  the  dirty  or  dangerous  work.  If  each  man  is  not 
to  be  allowed  to  do  what  he  pleases,  some  system  of  coercion 
will  be  necessary.    And  coerced  labor  is  slavery,  isn't  it  ? 

The  world  today  suffers  from  the  twin  evils  of  concentrated 
wealth  and  concentrated  population.  Socialism  proposes  to 
deal  with  the  first  of  these  two  by  substituting  "Collective 
Ownership"  for  individual  ownership.  This  means  the  setting 
aside  of  all  law,  written  and  unwritten,  which  protects  private 


272  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

property,  and  inasmuch  as  there  will  inevitably  be  a  powerful 
minority  who  will  refuse  to  surrender  their  title,  even  though 
Socialism  should  get  in  the  majority,  there  would  be  civil  war. 
With  the  legal  guarantees  of  hundreds  of  years  on  their  side, 
the  holders  of  property  would  most  assuredly  not  give  it  up 
without  a  fight.  So  it  would  seem  to  me  that  Socialism  is 
shutting  its  eyes  to  the  real  difficulty  in  dealing  with  the  first 
of  the  twin  evils  to  which  we  have  alluded. 

As  to  the  second,  the  concentration  of  population,  Socialism 
can  apply  no  remedy  which  cannot  be  tried  without  going  to 
Socialism. 

Wherever  several  million  human  beings  crowd  into  the  same 
place,  as  the}^  do  in  London,  New  York,  Chicago  and  other 
centres  of  population,  there  will  be  a  more  tragic  character 
given  to  the  struggle  for  existence,  no  matter  what  the  political 
and  industrial  system  may  be. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is,  in  my  opinion,  that 
we  have  departed  from  the  democratic-republican  ideal  of  our 
fathers,  and  we  must  return  to  the  old  landmarks.  We  must 
abolish  privilege ;  nationalize  and  municipalize  public  utilities ; 
equalize  taxes;  practise  Direct  Legislation;  elect  all  officers 
by  the  people;  restore  to  the  Government  the  exclusive  right 
to  supply  the  country  with  metallic  money  and  paper  cur- 
rency; extend  the  "R  17.  D.  and  adopt  the  Parcels  Post,  so  that 
the  dwellers  remote  from  the  city  may  enjoy  the  advantages 
of  the  city;  and  establish  Postal  Savings  Banks  so  that  the 
people  will  have  a  safe  and  convenient  place  of  deposit  for 
their  savings  and  accumulations. 

As  devoutly  as  I  believe  that  Right  is  better  than  Wrong, 
Good,  better  than  Bad,  Virtue,  better  than  Vice,  I  believe  that 
reforms  like  these  will  sweep  away  all  our  troubles,  and  give 
us  as  perfect  a  government  as  imperfect  human  nature  can 
successfully  maintain. 


Common  Sense  Education. 


I  am  indebted  to  Professor  M.  TY\  Parks,  of  Georgia,  for  a 
copy  of  an  address  delivered  by  him  last  May  before  the 
County  School  Commissioners'  Association. 

It  is  a  refreshing  thing  to  know  that  the  President  of  the 
Georgia  Educational  Association  holds  the  views  set  forth  in 
this  most  interesting  address..  His  subject  being  "Agriculture 
in  the  Public  Schools.''  Professor  Parks  commences  by  stating 
some  facts  which  are  certainly  unknown  to  most  of  our  readers 
and  which,  therefore,  they  will  be  glad  to  learn. 

"Virginia.  North  Carolina.  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Ten- 
nessee, Alabama.  Mississippi,  Louisiana  and  Nebraska  have 
passed  laws  requiring  agriculture  to  be  taught  in  the  schools. 
I  think  Maine  and  probably  several  other  States  have  recently 
taken  similar  action.  In  addition  to  this  a  large  number  of 
counties  in  Illinois,  Iowa,  Missouri  and  Ohio,  and  all  of  the 
counties  in  Maryland  are  requiring  agriculture  in  the  schools. 

"In  Europe,  agriculture  is  taught  in  connection  with  school 
gardens  and  there  are  said  to  be  more  than  100,000  of  these 
gardens.  France  alone  has  nearly  30.000,  as  the  teaching  of 
agriculture  has  been  obligatory  since  1882.  Austria  has  more 
than  20.000  gardens.  In  Eussia  no  school  will  be  accepted  by 
the  State  to  receive  State  funds  unless  a  garden  is  connected 
with  it.  In  a  single  province  of  Southern  Russia  257  schools 
have  gardens  aggregating  300  acres.  In  1895  these  gardens 
contained  among  other  things  111.000  fruit  trees,  240.000 
forest  trees  and  more  than  1,000  bee  hives. 

"In  Belgium  all  teachers  are  required  to  be  able  to  give 
'theoretical  and  practical  instruction  in  botany,  horticulture 
and  agriculture.' " 

Professor  Parks  then  quotes  a  good  sound  piece  of  common 
sense  from  an  address  of  Professor  L.  H.  Bailey,  of  Cornell 
University : 

"The  study  of  Greek  is  no  more  a  proper  means  of  education 
than  the  study  of  Indian  corn  is.  The  mind  may  be  developed 
by  either  one.  Classics  and  calculus  are  no  more  divine  than 
machines  and  potatoes. 

"What  a  man  is,  is  more  important  than  what  he  knows. 
Anything  that  appeals  to  a  man's  mind  is  capable  of  drawing 
out  and  training  a  man's  mind."'  * 

Nothing  could  be  truer  than  that!  yet  the  world  is  full  of 
pedagogues  who  devoutly  believe  that  no  boy's  mind  can  be 


274  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


properly  trained  without  being  pulled  through  the  barbed- 
wire  fence  of  Greek  and  trigonometry. 

Professor  Parks  also  quotes  President  Eliot,  of  Harvard : 

"We  have  lately  become  convinced  that  accurate  work  with 
carpenter's  tools,  or  lathe,  or  hammer  and  anvil,  or  piano,  or 
pencil,  or  crayon,  or  camel's-hair  brush,  trains  well  the  same 
nerves  and  ganglia  with  which  we  do  what  is  ordinarily  called 
thinking.  We  have  also  become  convinced  that  some  intimate, 
sympathetic  acquaintance  with  the  natural  objects  of  the  earth 
and  sky  adds  greatly  to  the  happiness  of  life  and  that  this 
continues  through  adolescence  and  maturity.  A  book,  a  hedge- 
row, or  a  garden  is  an  inexhaustible  teacher  of  wonder, 
reverence,  and  love. 

"The  idea  of  culture  has  always  included  a  quick  and  wide 
sympathy  in  men;  it  should  hereafter  include  sympathy  with 
nature  and  particularly  with  its  living  forms,  a  sympathy 
based  on  some  accurate  observation  of  nature." 

Professor  Parks  proceeds  to  say: 

"In  my  opinion — slowly  formed  after  years  of  experience 
and  investigation — agriculture,  if  properly  and  adequately 
studied,  as  a  science,  can  be  a  means  of  culture  as  well  as 
Latin  or  higher  mathematics." 

"Give  the  same  time  to  agriculture  that  is  now  given  to 
Latin,"  says  the  Professor,  "and  the  educational  results  will 
not  be  inferior  in  educational  value."  "Some  of  us,"  he  con- 
tends, "have  divorced  education  from  the  child  and  from  life. 
Too  often  we  attempt  to  teach  subjects  that  ought  not  to  be 
taught,  and  omit  subjects  which  ought  not  to  be  omitted. 
Many  of  our  small  high-schools  and  country  schools  are  forc- 
ing upon  the  many  the  subjects  that  should  be  for  the  few. 
Many  a  nervous  girl  is  poring  over  the  abstractions  of  trigo- 
nometry who  ought  to  be  cultivating  roses.  Many  a  poor  boy 
is  endeavoring  to  translate  Latin  who  ought  to  be  learning 
how  to  transplant  fruit  trees." 

True  as  Gospel ! 

A  vice  of  our  present  system  is  that  we  adopt  the  brick-yard 
method,  forgetting  the  difference  between  mud  and  human 
nature. 

No  two  boys  or  girls  are  alike,  yet  we  try  to  force  their 
minds  into  the  same  molds,  as  if  we  wanted  a  thousand  bricks 
of  uniform  size,  whereas  true  education  should  always  develop, 
draw  out,  each  boy  and  each  girl  along  the  lines  of  his  or  her 
individuality. 

In  the  learning  of  the  elementary  branches,  the  stepping 
stones  to  knowledge,,  the  feet  of  the  children  must  of  necessity 
patter  along  the  same  path;  but  in  the  preparation  of  each 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  275 


child  for  life  work  the  question  that  should  run  in  letters  of 
living  light  along  the  lintels  is  this : 

"What  is  the  individual  capacity  of  this  child  ?  What  is  this 
boy  best  fitted  by  nature  to  do?"  Surely,  the  boy  who  means 
to  be  a  mechanic  should  take  a  different  road  from  the  boy 
who  means  to  be  a  lawyer.  The  rudimentary  branches  having 
been  mastered,  surely  the  lad  who  leans  to  the  mercantile  busi- 
ness should  not  be  yoked  to  the  lad  whose  mental  trend  is  to 
the  literary  life. 

Says  Professor  Park:  "Let  us  bring  our  elementary  educa- 
tion closer  to  life;  let  us  teach  the  child  the  things  all  around 
it,  let  us  be  less  bookish  in  our  work,  let  us  help  the  child  to 
get  more  knowledge  at  first  hand  and  less  at  second  hand,  let 
us  help  the  child  to  learn  by  doing,  let  us  aid  him  in  develop- 
ing his  powers  by  self -activity." 

Golden  words ! 

Professor  Parks  makes  the  startling  assertion  that  our  sys- 
tem of  education  tends  to  dissatisfy  country  children  with  farm 
life,  educates  them  away  from  their  environment,  and  causes 
them  to  abandon  their  homes  in  the  rural  communities. 

Our  schools,  then,  are  partly  responsible  for  the  concentra- 
tion of  population  in  the  towns  and  cities.  Our  schools,  then, 
are  partly  responsible  for  the  scarcity  of  labor  on  the  farms. 
Our  schools,  then,  are  partly  to  blame  for  the  frightful  con- 
ditions of  city  life. 

If  Professor  Parks  is  correct  in  his  opinion,  and  I  believe 
that  he  is,  one  of  two  things  should  be  done,  and  done  quickly ; 
either  the  system  of  teaching  should  be  changed  in  the  man- 
ner he  advocates,  or  the  compulsory  payment  by  one  man  of  the 
school  bills  of  another  should  be  stopped. 

"Children  cannot  be  educated  by  books  alone.  They  need 
sense  training  by  contact  with  nature  and  they  need  develop- 
ment through  bodily  activity."  Again,  Professor  Parks 
beautifully  and  truly  says : 

"If  we  bring  our  country  schools  closer  to  life  and  teach 
more  about  farming,  what  effect  will  it  have  on  our  ideals? 
Are  there  not  some  who  claim  that  the  introduction  of  agri- 
culture in  the  schools  will  tend  to  lower  our  ideals?  And  yet 
are  they  not  wrong?  Are  the  problems  of  arithmetic,  about 
banks  and  money,  any  more  idealistic  than  the  forests  or  field 
of  corn?  Are  the  horrors  of  war  so  fully  narrated  in  our 
histories  any  more  ennobling  than  the  beauties  of  nature? 
Are  the  technicalities  of  grammar  any  more  inspiring  than  a 
bed  of  flowers? 

"No.  Our  cities  are  wrong.  Nature  study  does  not  lower 
one's  ideal.  Manual  labor  is  not  degrading.  Mr.  Frank 
Darling,  superintendent  of  the  vacation  schools  at  Chicago,  in 


276  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

speaking  of  the  results  of  garden  work  as  a  means  of  educa- 
tion, said  that,  in  point  of  educational  value  ,viewing  character 
as  the  product,  his  garden  experience  was  the  greatest  he  had 
ever  known." 

It  has  always  seemed  a  strange  thing  to  me  that  our  schools 
have  no  text -book  containing,  in  simple  form,  the  general 
principles  of  our  laws  and  our  Government.  Little  bits  of 
girls  carry  armsful  of  books  to  and  fro,  almost  struggling 
under  the  load:  the  boys  study  algebra  and  physiology  and 
Latin  and  Greek;  but  what  are  they  ever  taught  about  the 
system  of  Government  under  which  they  must  live,  the  laws 
which  they  must  obey,  the  general  plan  by  which  the  State 
acts  upon  the  citizen  and  the  citizen  controls  the  State? 

Would  it  not  be  practicable  and  beneficial  to  teach  every 
boy  and  girl  some  of  the  more  important  facts  concerning  our 
laws,  concerning  our  State  Government,  concerning  our 
National  Government?  Without  partisan  prejudice,  it  seems 
to  me  that  a  text-book  might  be  prepared  which  would 
enlighten  the  average  boy  of  sixteen  upon  the  system  under 
which  he  must  live  and  work — a  system  which  holds  sway  over 
his  life,  his  industry,  his  property,  and  which,  if  abused,  can 
destroy  his  prosperity  and  take  his  life. 

Yet  our  schools  are  turning  out  graduates  by  the  thousand 
who  cannot  answer  the  simplest  questions  concerning  the 
nature  and  operation  of  the  laws  of  the  land. 

If  Professor  Park  be  right  in  his  conception  of  the  ideal 
school — and  I  feel  that  he  is — he  will  be  rejoiced  to  learn  that 
the  State  of  Georgia  has  at  least  one  which  comes  up  to  the 
standard:  I  refer  to  the  school  of  Miss  Martha  Berry,  near 
Rome.  Here  the  boys  are  not  taught  from  books  alone.  They 
have  the  usual  book  teaching,  but  they  have  also  the  nature 
teaching,  the  self-help  teaching  which  Professor  Parks  so 
convincingly  advocates.  These  students  of  Miss  Berry's  school 
do  actual,  successful  farming.  Their  fields  adjoin  the  play- 
grounds. They  play  ball  close  to  where  they  fight  grass.  They 
build  their  own  houses;  and  they  "keep  the  house"  after  they 
have  built  it.  In  the  blacksmith  shop  they  can  make  the  tools 
they  work  with;  they  not  only  construct  the  cow-house  but 
milk  the  cow.  They  lay  out  the  ornamental  grounds,  trim  the 
undergrowth,  and  cultivate  the  flowers. 

And  a  cleaner,  snugger,  more  attractive  little  world  than 
these  boys  from  the  mountains  of  North  Georgia  have  created 
out  there  in  the  woods,  I  have  never  seen. 

The  cottages  were  built  of  logs,  but  such  log-houses  as  those 
you  never  saw  anvwhere  else.  There  is  a  charm  in  the  variety 
of  design,  a  charm  in  the  perfect  fitting  and  joining,  a  charm 
in  the  exquisite  cleanliness  of  floors  and  furnishings.  No 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


277 


matter  how  fine  may  be  the  house  you  live  in.  whenever  you 
see  Miss  Martha  Berry's  log  cabin  you  are  going  to  covet  the 
cabin. 

What  a  brave  fight  this  little  woman  has  made  in  the  build- 
ing up  of  her  school !  What  patience,  what  tact,  what  tenacity 
of  purpose,  what  knowledge  of  human  nature,  what  boundless 
sympathy  for  the  ambitious  boy  of  the  poverty-cursed 
mountains !  One  loves  to  take  off  his  hat  to  a  woman  like  this, 
and  to  honor  her  as  the  courtier  honors  the  queen. 

Far  better  than  most  queens  have  deserved  it.  does  this 
noble  sister  deserve  it.  To  her  devoted  efforts  thousands  of 
young  men  will  owe  that  early  up-lift.  that  priceless  "start,"' 
which  is  half  the  battle  in  the  great  struggle  of  life. 


Some  Aftermath  of  the  Civil  War. 


Stephens,  Toombs,  Ben  Hill,  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  the 
Colquitt  Campaign  of  1880,  Etc. 

(The  following  Chapter  giving  some  account  of  the  conditions 
following  the  Civil  War  was  written  to  form  the  conclusion  of  Mr. 
Watson's  book  ''Bethany."  For  reasons  not  worth  mention,  it  was 
omitted.  It  is  now  published  for  the  first  time,  just  as  the  author 
originally  wrote  it.) 

The  cruel  War  was  over.  Southern  soldiers,  putting  trust 
in  fair  promises,  laid  down  their  arms.  Had  we  been  fighting 
any  other  antagonist  than  the  Union,  we  would  never  have 
given  up  so  soon.  We  were  not  exhausted.  We  had  soldiers 
enough  in  the  field  to  have  kept  up  the  strife  indefinitely. 

With  such  a  vast  territory  as  ours,  abounding  in  positions 
of  such  enormous  natural  strength,  a  guerilla-band  warfare 
could  have  been  waged  forever.  But  our  people  were  divided 
in  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  for  the  war;  a  large  percentage 
of  the  population  felt  the  strife  to  be  unnatural :  they  yearned 
for  their  old  place  in  the  house  of  our  fathers;  they  believed 
that  brotherly  love  would  come  again  when  the  family  fight 
was  ended. 

This  was  the  feeling  and  the  sentiment  which  had  more  to 
do  with  conquering  the  South  than  all  the  armies  marshalled 
against  her.  Had  we  felt  towards  Grant's  soldiers  and  the 
Northern  people  as  we  had  felt  toward  Cornwallis  and  Great 
Britain,  we  would  have  continued  to  struggle  in  the  Sixties, 
as  we  did  in  the  Revolutionary  War — till  the  land  was  a  desert 
and  its  last  man  in  the  saddle.  But  we  wanted  to  be  at  peace 
again  with  our  brethren ;  old  associates  appealed  to  us ;  the  old 
flag,  which  our  fathers  had  helped  to  make  glorious,  was  dear 
to  us;  we  wanted  to  go  back  home — to  our  old  place  in  the 
Union. 

This,  this  was  the  sentiment  which,  more  than  all  others, 
made  the  South  grow  weary  of  the  war. 

Nobody  doubted  that  a  sincere,  fraternal  reconciliation 
would  follow  Appomattox.  The  flag  was  furled  and  the 
musket  stacked  in  that  belief.  Grant  had  been  magnanimous 
to  Lee's  veterans;  and  when  the  soldiers  of  the  two  armies 
lowered  their  guns  they  had  clasped  hands.  The  individual 
"Yank"  did  not  hate  the  individual  "Johnnie."  They  had 
proved  each  other's  pluck;  they  knew  each  other  to  be  brave 
and  kind ;  they  were  ready  to  be  the  best  of  friends. 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


279 


Shame  forever  upon  the  professional  place-hunters  who 
dangled  "the  bloody  shirt"  before  the  eyes  of  these  brave  men 
for  twenty  year-  after  the  war.  and.  for  partisan  purposes, 
kept  alive  the  passion  of  the  Civil  War  ! 

But  nobody  dreamed  of  that  in  ISOo.  "Let  us  have  peace!" 
said  the  big-hearted  Grant :  and  he  meant  it.  "You  will  need 
your  horse-  to  make  your  crops:  take  them." 

Generous  conqueror — greatest  in  that  he  was  considerate 
and  compassionate  in  the  hour  of  supreme  victory ! 

Yes.  Let  us  have  peace.  Let  us  forget  the  awful  past.  Let 
us  cure  the  ghastly  wounds  of  war.  Let  us  beat  the  swords 
into  ploughshare-,  and  cover  the  land  once  more  with  the 
splendor  of  harvests,  Let  the  peaceful  hum  of  industry  shame 
the  war  bugle  into  eternal  silence. 

Who  dreamed  of  the  horror-  of  reconstruction? 

Who  dreamed  of  the  deliberate,  vindictive  crusade  against 
Southern  civilization  \  What  prophet  warned  us  of  Loyal 
Leagues  and  carpet-bag  host-  bearing  down  upon  us  to  destroy 
the  white  man's  pride  and  purity  of  race  and  system,  to  plant 
upon  it-  ruin-  the  foulest  negro  domination  \ 

We  had  understood  that  all  that  was  required  of  us  was  to 
lay  down  our  arm-.  That  done,  our  place  in  the  house  of  our 
fathers  was  again  open  to  us.  That  done,  we  were  to  be 
treated  as  brethren  who  had  erred,  but  who  had  repented. 
In  this  spirit,  we  had  understood  Abraham  Lincoln  to  speak 
at  Hampton  Road-.  In  this  spirit,  we  had  understood  Grant 
to  speak  at  Appomattox.  We  never  dreamed  that  when  the 
sword  of  the  brave,  generous  Northern  soldier  was  sheathed, 
and  we  were  disarmed,  that  the  vindictive  and  cowardly  and 
utterly  selfish  politician  would  be  permitted  to  wreak  his 
vengeance  upon  us  with  legislative  pen. 

Had  that  ghastly  program  of  Thad  Stevens  and  Charles 
Sumner  been  suspected,  had  it  flashed  through  the  minds  of 
Southern  leaders  that  Appomattox  was  to  be  followed  by  the 
most  rancorous  and  persistent  efforts  to  debase,  degrade  and 
destroy  everything  which  the  white  people  of  the  South  held 
sacred,  no  power  on  earth  would  ever  had  lowered  the  flag  of 
the  Confederacy  while  a  brigade  could  be  mustered  to  defend 
it.  If  Lee  had  proven  too  much  of  a  gentleman-soldier,  too 
much  of  a  TTest-Pointer,  to  organize  guerilla  war  throughout 
the  mountain  fastnesses  and  the  swamps  of  the  South,  he 
would  have  been  discarded,  and  the  despair  of  the  South 
would  have  found  its  leaders  in  such  men  as  X.  B.  Forrest. 

Bather  than  have  ingloriously  permitted  the  coming  of  the 
day  when  whites  were  to  be  disarmed  and  negroes  armed, 
white-  disfranchised  and  negroes  vested  with  the  ballot,  the 
doors  of  office  closed  to  the  representative  whites  of  the  South 


280  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

and  opened  to  the  most  ignorant  negroes,  a  war  of  extermina- 
tion would  have  been  fought,  in  comparison  with  which  the 
heroic  struggle  of  the  South  African  Republics  against  Great 
Britain  would  have  been  child's  play. 

In  spite  of  all  that  England  could  do  against  those  weak 
republics  they  utterly  refused  every  offer  of  peace  which  did 
not  include  the  stipulation  that  the  Boers  themselves  should 
deal  with  the  blacks.  The  awful  experience  of  the  Southern 
States,  whose  leaders  had  fatally  neglected  that  precaution, 
had  made  its  impression  throughout  the  world;  and  the  men, 
the  boys,  the  women,  and  even  the  girls  of  the  South  African 
Republic  were  found  fighting  in  the  ranks,  determined  to  die 
with  guns  in  their  hands,  rather  than  submit  to  the  horrible 
treatment  the  North  inflicted  upon  the  South  after  Lee's  sur- 
render. 

Great  God !  What  Southern  man  or  woman  can  forget  it  ? 
General  Grant  did  not  do  it.  The  brave  soldiers  who  fought 
us  did  not  do  it.  No !  The  monstrous  crime  of  putting  black 
heels  upon  white  necks  was  the  deed  of  cowardly  politicians 
who  had  never  smelt  gun-powder.  They  had  ridden  into  office 
upon  the  wave  of  sectional  hatred,  they  devised  the  infamous 
Reconstruction  policy  to  keep  alive  that  hate  and  their  own 
supremacy. 

Beaten  in  the  open  field;  misled  into  a  surrender  of  their 
cause ;  mocked,  outlawed,  pillaged,  and  nigger-ruled,  what  was 
the  white  man  of  the  South  to  do?  Should  partisan  hatred  be 
allowed  to  reverse  the  order  of  nature?  Should  the  blacks 
dominate  the  Southern  people,  debauching  the  South  to  the 
level  of  Hayti  and  San  Domingo?  Should  the  white  men  of 
the  Southern  States  be  the  sole  exception  to  the  law  of  nature 
that  the  superior  race  shall  dominate  its  inferior? 

Against  such  an  idea  every  instinct  of  Anglo-Saxon  man- 
hood revolted.   It  never  had  been  so.   It  should  not  ever  be  so. 

Death  were  better  than  such  unbearable  degradation.  We 
had  been  duped,  betrayed,  disarmed  by  fair  promises — but  we 
were  not  remediless. 

Almost  within  the  compass  of  a  night,  an  invisible  empire 
sprang  to  life ;  and  the  very  best  minds  and  hearts  of  the  South 
were  its  sworn  subjects. 

The  order  of  the  White  Camelia,  and  the  Ku  Klux  Klan 
sprang,  full-armed  and  desperately  determined,  into  the  crisis; 
and  against  these  secret  societies  negro  domination  and  carpet- 
bag dictation  went  down,  never  to  rise  again. 

General  Forrest  did  the  South  immense  service  during  the 
war,  but  his  chief  glory  is  that  when  the  Knightly  Lee  had 
disbanded  the  troops,  he  reorganized  them  in  a  secret  league 
against  which  the  North  was  utterly  powerless. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  281 


John  B.  Gordon  was  a  magnificent  soldier  in  the  field,  and 
his  scar  shone  with  unceasing  lustre  to  the  very  last,  but  he 
was  even  more  effective  after  Appomattox  when  he  was  direct- 
ing the  resistless  energies  of  the  Klans  which  had  sworn  to 
redeem  Georgia,  or  die ! 

Toombs  had  been  forceful  in  the  Senate,  valiant  in  the  field, 
but  he  was  not  less  a  power  when,  through  his  son-in-law, 
(Gen.  DuBose)  he  was  an  active  counsellor  of  the  Ku  Klux 
Klan. 

Hampton  of  South  Carolina  was  great  at  Manassas,  when, 
with  blood  blinding  his  e}^es,  he  refused  to  obey  Beauregard's 
order  to  retreat,  sending  back  the  answer,  "We  did  not  come 
here  to  retreat;"  but  the  noblest  service  he  ever  rendered  the 
Southern  people  was  when  he  led  the  fight  to  re-instate  white 
people  in  the  control  of  their  own  land. 

And  the  work  of  such  soldiers  as  these  was  splendidly  sup- 
plemented by  the  fierv  eloquence  of  tongue  and  pen  of  Ben 
Hill. 

At  last,  the  fearful  ordeal  was  ended.  At  last,  the  South 
shook  off  alien  rule  and  negro  domination. 

A  nd  the  odds  against  which  she  struggled,  and  the  complete- 
ness with  which  she  triumphed,  constitute  the  most 
resplendently  glorious  chapter  in  her  history. 

The  danger  passed.  Negroes  ceased  to  vote.  The  white  man 
had  it  all  his  own  way.  Democracy  and  the  Solid  South  were 
fixed  facts.  Republican  delegates  from  Southern  States  could 
dictate  the  choice  of  Presidential  candidates  in  national  con- 
ventions— but  could  never  give  them  a  vote  in  the  electoral 
colleges.  A  queer  situation,  for  which  no  remedy  has  been 
found;  a  gruesome  legacy  of  war.  True,  these  Republican 
delegations  from  the  South  are  regularly  bought;  but  that  is 
not  a  remedy.  Perhaps  it  is  an  aggravation  of  the  disease. 
Upon  the  other  hand,  the  Democratic  Party  at  the  South 
holds  its  own  in  local  matters  by  surrendering  its  body  and 
its  soul  to  the  Northern  wing  of  the  party.  No  matter  who  is 
nominated,  no  matter  what  is  the  platform,  the  South  must 
vote  the  Democratic  ticket — for  fear  of  the  negro. 

Out  of  this  anomalous  state  of  things  has  grown  as  corrupt 
a  political  situation  as  the  world  ever  knew. 

Once,  and  once  only,  in  the  long  history  of  Rome  the 
imperial  purple  was  put  up  at  public  auction,  and  sold  to  the 
highest  bidder.  The  very  Pretorians  who  did  this  thing  grew 
ashamed  of  the  act;  and  the  wretched  Julianus  had  to  wipe  off 
the  disgrace  with  his  blood.  With  us,  the  process  of  barter 
and  sale  occurs  regularly  every  four  years;  and  we  have  passed 
the  point  where  we  are  ashamed.  It  has  become  a  custom,  and, 
like  all  customs,  has  achieved  respectability.    Where  royal 


282  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

concubinage  is  the  practice,  royal  bastards  are  the  peers  of 
the  realm;  and  the  strumpets  of  the  kings  set  fashions  for 
'"Society." 

The  Solid  South  presenting  an  unbroken  front  in  national 
politics,  found  causes  of  difference,  locally,  in  the  distribution 
of  the  spoils.  Feuds,  factions,  bitter  antagonisms  arose.  As  a 
balance  of  power,  the  negro  was  called  in  to  decide  the  contest. 
By  whom?  By  Southern  Democrats.  Thus  in  their  greed  for 
office,  the  Democrats  opened  up  a  new  chapter  in  Southern 
politics — a  chapter  which  my  friend  Dr.  Thomas  Dixon  seems 
to  have  skipped. 

Let  us  tell  the  truth  and  shame  the  devil !  It  was  the  South- 
ern Democrat  who  lugged  the  negro  back  into  politics  from 
which  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  had  driven  him.  So  far  as  the  State 
of  Georgia  is  concerned,  this  momentous  event  occurred  in 
1880,  when  the  mischief-making  two-thirds  rule  split  the 
Democratic  Convention;  and  two  Democratic  candidates  were 
running  for  the  governorship.  In  this  campaign  followers  of 
one  of  the  candidates  declared  over  and  over  again  that  no 
race  had  ever,  in  the  same  space  of  time,  made  such  wonderful 
progress  in  civilization  as  the  negro  race  had  done  since  the 
Civil  War — a  ludicrously  false  statement  which  did  enormous 
harm.  The  other  candidate  had  taken  the  position  that  the 
whites  ought  to  rule,  and  that  negro  suffrage  was  a  failure. 
He  was  overwhelmingly  beaten  at  the  polls,  for  all  the  blacks 
voted  against  him. 

Georgia,  by  her  "White  Primary,"  and  other  Southern 
States  by  Constitutional  amendments  have  made  strenuous 
endeavors  to  put  the  negro  back  where  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  left 
him;  but  the  success  of  the  effort  is  far  from  complete. 

It  was  a  bad  day  for  the  whites  of  the  South  when  her 
office-hungry  politicians  took  the  sacred  nigger  by  the  hand 
and  led  him,  with  flattering  words,  back  to  the  polls  to  decide 
the  issue  of  the  campaign. 

It  was  a  bad  day  for  the  South  when  this  same  greedy 
political  element  permitted  the  negro  leaders  to  play  one 
faction  of  the  whites  against  the  other — thus  securing  from 
Southern  Democrats  what  Northern  Republicans  could  never 
have  given.  In  this  manner,  they  again  entered  the  doors  of 
office ;  in  this  manner,  they  have  educated  themselves  at  our 
expense;  in  this  manner,  they  again  armed  themselves  into 
military  companies;  in  this  manner,  they  secured  political 
recognition. 

There  was  a  great  gathering  of  politicians  in  Atlanta,  The 
Kimball  "Wouse  corridors  and  rotunda  were  thronged.  Up 
and  down  the  marble  stirway,  hurried  feet  came  and  went. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  283 


Alec.  Stephens  was  going  to  run  for  Governor.  He  had 
been  sent  back  to  Congress,  after  the  war,  and  had  been 
industrious  and  effective  in  departments;  but  his  feeble  con- 
dition rendered  him  powerless  on  the  floor  of  the  House.  A 
pale,  pathetic  figure,  propped  in  his  roller-chair,  he  had  been 
treated  with  indulgence  so  long  as  he  was  obstructing  nobody, 
but  the  moment  he  tried  to  stop  the  progress  of  the  majority 
on  the  then  famous  Potter  Resolution,  he  was  howled  down. 

It  suited  the  Georgia  politicians,  for  certain  reasons,  to  run 
the  old  statesman  for  Governor  in  1882,  and  he  was  now  at  the 
Kimball  House,  in  one  of  the  large  parlors  on  the  second  floor, 
receiving  a  constant  stream  of  visitors. 

He  had  written  a  constitutional  history  of  the  "War  Between 
the  States,''  which  earned  him  nearly  fifty  thousand  dollars; 
and  he  had  spent  the  money  educating  young  men,  and  in 
running  a  daily  newspaper  in  the  vain  effort  to  teach  latter- 
day  Democrats  what  Jeffersonian  Democracy  was.  The  old 
statesman  was  wan  as  a  ghost;  his  pallid,  shrivelled  face 
spotted  with  unwholesome  dark  splotches.  But  his  expression 
was  beautifully  benevolent,  and  his  eyes  were  radiant  with 
the  tenderness  of  a  noble  heart. 

After  a  long  career  of  labor  and  opportunity,  he  was  poor. 
He  owned  a  house  and  lot  in  a  country  town;  that  was  all. 
Old  Harry,  his  body-servant  owned  a  house  and  lot  beside  his 
former  master's;  and  it  was  believed  that  the  negro  was  the 
richei  of  the  two. 

Grand  old  Statesman !  His  mind  had  been  a  mountain- 
peak  in  loftiness;  his  spotless  purity  of  character  tipped  it 
with  snow. 

Not  far  from  the  Kimball  House,  at  his  lovely  home  on 
Peachtree  Street,  languished  the  great  Ben  Hill, — a  cancer 
eating  his  life  away. 

He  had  been  sent  to  Congress,  had  bounded  into  national 
fame  as  a  debater,  had  measured  strength  with  Carpenter  and 
Conkling  and  Blaine.  He  had  joined  issue  with  the  Plumed 
Knight  on  the  question  of  the  Andersonville  horrors,  and 
thrilled  the  South  with  the  pride  of  his  triumph. 

Not  until  he  had  taken  his  seat  in  Congress  had  any  South- 
ern representative  dared  to  "talk  back."  Ben  Hill  did  it.  and 
did  it  so  grandly  that  a  new  life  entered  into  Southern  politics. 

But  his  eloquent  tongue  was  stilled  at  last.  Never  again 
would  he  plead  the  cause  of  his  people  at  the  bar  of  public 
opinion;  or  rebuke  in  National  councils  the  partisans  who 
would  keep  burning  forever  the  fires  of  sectional  hate.  I  was 
present  and  heard  Mr.  Stephens  dictate  the  last  message  that 
ever  passed  between  himself  and  his  ancient  foe.  The  shadow 
of  death,  the  white  face  of  the  dying  orator,  was  a  flag  of 


284  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


truce:  and  in  the  late  hour  of  the  evening*  of  life  these  two 
mastermen  of  the  South  were  forgetting  the  bitter  animosities, 
of  the  past. 

General  Toombs  was  on  hand.  He  had  made  his  escape  to 
Europe  after  the  war,  and  had  remained  abroad  several  years. 
He  had  returned  at  length,  and  had  resumed  the  practice  of 
law — making  enormous  fees.  He  had  led  an  attack  on  the 
Railroads  which  were  dodging  their  taxes,  and  had  fought 
the  cases  through  to  the  highest  courts — succeeding  all  along 
the  line.  He  had  put  a  fee  of  forty-five  thousand  dollars  into 
his  own  pocket,  and  a  yearly  revenue  of  about  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  into  the  State's  coffers. 

He  had  sued  the  Treasurer  of  Georgia,  a  life-long  Demo- 
crat, and  had  recovered,  in  spite  of  Ben  Hill,  a  large  sum  to  the 
State;  for  the  officer  had  negligently  kept  his  accounts  and 
paid  State  obligations  twice. 

At  the  instance  of  Toombs,  a  State  Constitutional  Con- 
vention had  been  called,  to  pay  the  expenses  of  which  he  had 
advanced,  as  a  loan,  twenty-five  thousand  dollars.  He  had 
dominated  it  ;  and  had  so  written  the  law  that  it  seemed  to  the 
people  that  the  public  revenues  would  be  forever  safe,  and 
Railroad  monopoly  and  extortion  made  impossible.  It  was 
not  his  fault  that  the  law,  in  both  instanecs,  has  been  thrust 
a«idp,  and  that  money  is  constantly  being  taken,  illegally,  out 
of  the  treasury,  while  the  Railway  Combination  bosses  the 
State  and  its  absurd  Railroad  Commission. 

If  there  be  anything  on  earth  more  farcical  than  a  State 
Commission  to  control  the  railway  corporations,  it  is  the 
National  Commission  salaried  and  sworn  to  do  the  same 
thing. 

A  disappointed  man,  Toombs  drank  heavily,  was  often 
drunk ;  and  his  habit  was  to  denounce  pretty  much  everything 
and  everybody^ 

Politically,  he  no  longer  counted  for  anything.  But  he  was 
rich,  stood  at  the  head  of  the  bar,  was  more  or  less  feared 
because  of  his  terrible  tongue,  and  held  in  a  respect  which 
was  reminiscent  of  his  past  glory  and  his  tried  loyalty  to  the 
South. 

Wherever  Toombs  passed,  curious  eyes  would  follow  him; 
wherever  he  stopped  a  group  would  gather  to  hear  him  talk. 
Nobody  pinned  faith  to  what  he  said;  nobody  altered  his 
course  a  jot  because  of  any  opinion  he  expressed,  but  every- 
body delighted  to  see  him  and  to  hear  him  talk.  It  was  like 
going  to  see  Vesuvius  in  eruption. 

I  saw  General  Toombs  rise  slowly  and  heavily  from  one  of 
the  tables  in  the  dining  room,  and  come  into  the  corridor  lead- 
ing to  the  elevator.  He  leaned  upon  a  gold-headed  cane,  and 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


285 


walked  with  a  stoop.  Two  country  delegates,  coming  from 
Mr.  Stephens'  room,  recognized  the  General;  and  over  their 
rough  faces  spread  an  expression  of  joy  and  pride.  One  of 
them  cried  to  the  other : 

"See  here,  Sam!  this  is  Toombs — old  Toombs!" — using  the 
word  old  as  a  term  of  endearment, 

Toombs  had  drunk  just  enough  wine  to  be  quarrelsome. 
The  lion  was  in  no  mood  to  be  fondled.  To  the  confusion  of 
the  honest  country  men,  who  stood  before  him  bowing  and 
smiling,  he  roared : 

"Don't  call  me  old,  sir !  By  God,  Sir.  It's  an  offensive 
term  !  Get  out  of  my  way !"  And  with  a  flourish  of  his  cane, 
he  strode  majestically  to  the  elevator. 

Late  that  evening  he  was  down  in  the  bar-room,  back  of  the 
clerk's  desk.  He  had  had  his  after-dinner  nap;  the  fumes  of 
the  wine  no  longer  dulled  his  brain  or  ruffled  his  temper.  He 
was  in  high  good  humor,  was  talking  in  a  rapid,  high  voice, 
and  was  surrounded  by  a  group  of  eager  listeners. 

His  eyes  were  as  bright  as  ever,  his  play  of  wit  and  invective 
as  keen,  the  flexibility  of  his  lips  and  the  animation  of  his  man- 
ner as  great,  His  hair  was  iron-gray,  abundant,  disordered, 
like  the  mane  of  a  lion,  but  as  becoming  to  him  as  in  his  prime. 
Decidedly,  he  was  the  most  leonine  old  man  I  ever  beheld.  He 
was  a  ruin,  but  majestic  and  impressive.  No  matter  how  much 
you  might  revolt  in  judgment  at  what  he  said,  he  carried  you 
with  him  for  the  moment.  There  was  a  power  in  him  which 
made  him  royal  on  the  curbstone,  or  in  the  bar-room,  just  as 
it  had  done  in  court-house  and  legislative  hall. 

As  I  drew  near  the  noisy  group  where  the  old  General  was 
holding  forth,  in  his  wildest  way,  I  caught  the  words : 

"Well,  boys,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  almost  broke  his  heart 
over  the  morals  of  the  South,  and  now,  by  God  !  he  has  taken 
Theodore  Tilton's  wife  away  from  him!" 

Toombs  laughed  boisterously,  and  there  was  a  regular  roar 
all  around.   "Poor  Tilton  !"  exclaimed  one. 

"Poor  hell !"  retorted  the  General.  "I've  got  no  more  pity 
for  Tilton  than  I  have  for  Beecher.  Tilton  was  an  Abolitionist 
lecturer,  too,  and  was  just  as  fanatical  about  the  South  as 
Beecher  was.  Those  two  humbugs  worked  in  harness  together 
to  bring  on  the  Civil  War,  and  now  at  this  late  day  the  preacher 
has  to  debauch  his  friend's  wife.  Nice  fellows  to  go  crusading 
on  morals!  Perhaps  they  did  it  on  the  idea  that  they  were 
certain  of  their  sins  and  damned  doubtful  of  their  salvation ! " 

Shouts  of  loud  laughter  of  course. 

"I  wonder  if  old  Thad  Stevens  lives  with  that  nigger  wife 
of  his  yet?"  continued  Toombs. 

"You  know  there  are  two  good  reasons  why  he  wants  revenge 


286  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


on  the  South.  One  is  that  Gen.  P.  M.  B.  Young's  cavalry 
destroyed  his  foundry  at  Gettysburg;  and  the  other  is,  that 
he  loves  his  negro  concubine  better  than  he  ever  loved  a  white 
woman." 

Another  volley  of  "Haw,  Haw,  Haws." 

The  General  rattled  on,  "Yes,  and  I  see  that  Cash  Clay 
(Cassius  M.  Clay)  of  Kentucky  has  shot  a  nigger!  By  God! 
I  knew  he  would!"  It  seemed  to  tickle  Toombs  immensely 
that  this  noted  Abolitionist  and  professional  champion  of  the 
negro  race  had  wound  up  by  having  to  shoot  one  of  his  pets. 

"By  God !  I  wish  that  every  d — d  Yankee  who  is  eternally 
agonizing  over  the  niggers  could  be  made  to  wear  one  of  them 
a -straddle  of  his  nose." 

This  is  not  exactly  what  Toombs  said,  but  conveys  his  idea 
as  well  as  can  be  done  in  print.  His  actual' wish  and  words 
were  shockingly  coarse  and  irresistibly  funny. 

Toombs'  exclamation  was  received  with  the  usual  burst  of 
laughter. 

The  General  was  a  privileged  character  in  these  days,  and 
could  say  things  which  no  other  man  could  have  uttered.  It 
was  a  constant  thing  for  him  to  denounce  the  Democratic 
politicians  who  were  controlling  the  South.  He  ridiculed  their 
management  and  despised  their  cowardice.  They  had  gone  to 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  adopted  a  national  platform  in 
which  they  declared  that  the  Democrats  of  the  South  adored 
the  14th  and  15th  Amendments  in  common  with  the  other 
portions  of  the  Constitution. 

For  this  astounding  mendacity,  Toombs  had  no  language  to 
fully  express  his  indignation  and  contempt. 

"The  d — d  fools !  Do  they  expect  to  deceive  the  North  by 
any  such  lies  as  that  ?  Do  they  expect  to  win  respect  either  at 
home  or  abroad  by  base  truckling  and  shameless  falsehood? 
What  right  have  the  Democratic  bosses  to  humiliate  the  South- 
ern people  by  wallowing  in  the  mud  like  that?" 

He  likewise  denounced  the  Democratic  Party  for  supporting 
Horace  Greeley  for  the  Presidency.  He  regarded  this  as  a 
pusillanimous  surrender  of  principle.  Greeley  at  the  session 
of  the  Southern  States  had  first  said,  as  General  Winfield  Scott 
had  done,  "Let  the  erring  sisters  depart  in  Peace;"  but  when 
the  wind  set  the  other  way  Greeley  had  shifted  his  sails  and 
become  vindictively  antagonistic  to  the  South. 

True,  he  had  signed  Jeff  Davis'  bond,  but  that  act  alone 
could  not  reverse  the  record  of  his  whole  career. 

To  goad  him  on,  one  of  the  young  men  said  to  Toombs : 

"General,  I  believe  you  hate  the  North  as  much  as  ever." 

"Hate  it?  Of  course  I  hate  it.  Why  shouldn't  I?  Am  I 
more  or  less  than  human?    Haven't  they  given  me  cause 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  287 


enough  ?  Didn't  they  drench  my  country  with  blood  and  sweep 
it  with  fire  ?  Haven't  they  deprived  me  of  the  rights  of  a  free 
man?  Haven't  they  injected  millions  of  black  savages  into  the 
body  politic  for  the  sole  purpose  of  blotting  out  our  civiliza- 
tion ?  Did  any  other  white  people,  since  God  made  the  world, 
ever  try  to  set  the  black  race  over  the  white?  Haven't  they  so 
organized  a  hell  in  the  South  that  no  white  woman  dares  to 
venture  beyond  white  protection,  for  fear  some  lustful  brute 
will  make  her  his  prey  ?  Hate  the  North  ?  Yes,  by  God  !  I  do 
hate  it — not  the  good  men  and  the  true  who  can  be  found  there, 
as  elsewhere,  but  the  dominant  party  which  makes  cruelty  to 
the  South  part  of  their  political  capital — men  who  in  the 
fanaticism  of  love  for  the  nigger  and  hatred  for  us  would 
mongrelize  our  race  and  pollute  our  civilization." 

A  mild-looking  traveller,  evidently  a  Northern  man, 
attracted  by  the  loud  talking  and  the  excited  group,  drew  near 
and  listened. 

As  Toombs  paused  to  take  another  drink,  this  Northern 
gentleman  said: 

"General  Toombs,  I  was  one  of  those  who  heard  your  lecture 
on  slavery  in  Tremont  Temple  in  1854.  Let  me  ask  you  if  you 
do  not  believe  that  education  will  remove  all  trouble  between 
the  whites  and  blacks  in  the  South?"' 

Toombs  glared  at  his  questioner  a  moment,  as  though  half 
inclined  to  cut  him  short  with  some  insulting  thrust,  but  the 
man's  attitude  and  expression  was  so  respectful  and  earnest, 
that  Toombs'  better  nature  prevailed,  and  his  reply  was : 

"No,  sir,  I  do  not.  Education  never  changes  character. 
Nations  and  individuals  have  certain  characteristics  which  are 
inborn,  ineradicable.  Education  cannot  reach  and  alter  these. 
It  cannot  take  away  traits  of  character  from  nations  or  indi- 
viduals, nor  can  it  give  them.  God  makes  character, — school- 
teachers can  only  train  what  is  already  there." 

"But."  persisted  the  Northern  man.  "the  Frenchman,  the 
German,  the  Anglo-Saxon,  the  Celt  are  no  longer  the  savages 
they  used  to  be.   Education  has  civilized  them." 

"In  part,  yes."  answered  Toombs.  "But  in  character  the 
Frenchman  is  today  what  he  was  when  a  savage, — lustful, 
brave,  fickle,  enthusiastic,  emotional.  Among  the  German 
tribes  women  always  held  a  high,  sacred  place :  and  a  sense  of 
individual  freedom  and  independence  was  predominant.  Those 
characteristics  of  the  savage  state  are  their  characteristics 
today.  Education  has  refined  them,  but  has  not  changed  them. 
So  the  Celt.  The  Irishman  and  the  Scotch-Highlander  of 
today  is  precisely  what  he  was  in  race  characteristics,  when  he 
was  a  bare-legged  savage.  You  can't  educate  the  fun  and  the 
courage  out  of  the  Irisman.   You  can't  educate  the  seriousness 


288  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


and  courage  out  of  the  Highlander.  Now  take  the  negro.  In 
his  native  home  he  had  no  morals.  These  naked  savages  lived 
promiscuously,  and  indulged  their  passions  as  openly  as  goats. 
They  were  brought  over  here  and  we  put  clothes  on  them. 
We  compelled  them  to  lives  of  outward  decency.  But  they 
have  no  real  morality."  The  remainder  of  the  General's  story 
is  unprintable. 

The  look  of  mingled  amazement  and  disgust  which  spread 
over  the  Northern  man's  face  at  this  brutally  frank  statement 
was  a  sight  to  see.  Without  another  word,  he  turned  and 
walked  off,  followed  by  shouts  of  laughter  from  the  young  men 
who  surrounded  Toombs. 

"General,  what's  going  to  be  the  end  of  this  negro  problem?" 
asked  one  of  the  bystanders. 

Toombs  was  silent,  reluctant  to  speak, — a  most  uncomomn 
thing  with  him.  At  length  he  spoke  very  earnestly  and 
impressively : 

"Unless  all  human  experience  and  foresight  is  vain,  there 
are  only  two  possible  solutions:  either  the  negro  must  be 
accepted  as  a  social  and  political  equal,  or  he  must  be  kept  in 
subjection  by  some  form  of  coercion.  To  give  him  education, 
and  at  the  same  time  condemn  him  to  political  and 
social  inferiority,  is  impossible  without  a  fight.  Let  the  South 
get  ready  for  one  of  two  things,  negro  equality,  or  the  forcible 
holding  down  of  the  negro.  Pitiful  little  politicians  dickering 
for  office,  may  suggest  temporary  expedients  to  allay  the 
trouble,  but  to  the  statesman  it  is  clear  that  one  or  the  other  of 
these  two  alternatives  must  come." 

"Then  you  oppose  the  education  of  the  negro,  General?" 

"Oh.  I  make  no  objection  to  his  being  taught  to  read  and 
write,  but  as  a  rule  when  you  do  more  for  the  negro  you  have 
turned  loose  upon  society  a  social  incendiary,  agitator  and 
revolutionist.  He  will  never  contentedly  sink  back  to  his  place 
as  a  negro,  but  will  ever  afterwards  crave  a  higher  position." 

"You  hate  the  negro  race,  General?" 

"By  no  means,  sir,"  he  promptly  answered. 

"As  long  as  a  negro  keeps  his  place  I  like  him  well  enough. 
There  are  some  good  negroes — loyal,  honest,  true  to  death — 
but  they  are  few.  As  a  race,  they  are  vastly  inferior  to  whites, 
and  deserve  pity.  This  pity  I  am  willing  to  extend  to  them 
as  long  as  they  remain  negroes,  but  the  moment  a  nigger  tries 
to  be  a  white  man,  I  hate  him  like  hell." 

"General,  do  you  ever  expect  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  Government?"  some  one  asked. 

"No.  bv  God.  I  will  live  and  die  an  unreconstructed  rebel !" 

"But  after  all.  General,"  asked  a  voice  in  the  crowd,  "was  it 
not  better  that  we  got  whipped  in  the  war?" 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


289 


"Whipped  \  We  never  got  whipped.  We  wore  ourselves  out 
whipping  them !  Gentlemen,  let  me  tell  you — Bob  Lee  was 
too  soft-hearted,  too  much  of  a  gentleman,  to  be  a  successful 
soldier.  Had  he  been  as  ruthless  as  Frederick  the  Great.  Xapo- 
leon.  or  Wellington,  we  would  have  won  the  fight  during  the 
first  two  years.  Think  of  Lee  in  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania 
putting  the  fence  rails  back  in  the  fences,  and  forbidding  his 
famished  soldiers  to  forage  !  When  did  the  Xorth  really  begin 
to  make  headway  against  us?  It  was  when  she  put  gentle- 
manly, squeamish  commanders  aside,  and  selected  ruthless 
generals  like  Grant  and  Sherman.   Then  we  caught  it ! 

McClellan  and  Burnside  and  Meade — they  never  would 
have  conquered  the  South.  It  required  such  a  man  as  Grant 
who  didn't  care  a  damn  how  many  of  his  men  got  slaughtered, 
provided  he  could  win :  Sheridan,  who  got  up  out  of  the  bed 
and  galloped  to  Winchester  to  rally  his  men  to  victory,  and 
who  left  the  Shenandoah  Valley  a  smoking  blood-soaked 
desert :  Sherman,  who  said  'war  is  hell  and  you  can't  refine  it,' 
and  who  was  the  only  general  of  modern  times  to  issue  orders 
to  kill  non-combatants  and  burn  undefended  cities.  Lee  and 
Stuart  and  Johnson  and  Beauregard  made  war  like  gentlemen 
— and  got  thrashed. 

"Grant.  Sherman,  and  Sheridan  made  war  like  soldiers, — 
and  won.  After  all  war  is  hell,  and  the  squeamish  man  had 
better  stay  out  of  it." 

Recurring  then  to  the  original  query.  Toombs  continued : 

"Nq,'I  am  not  glad  Lee  surrendered.  We  ought  to  have  won 
our  independence.  The  Southern  States  should  form  an 
empire  of  itself.  So  ought  New  England.  So  ought  the  North. 
So  ought  the  West.  The  republic  is  too  big.  Legislation  fails 
when  applied  to  so  wide  a  territory.  The  welfare  of  the  four 
great  sections  is  too  antagonistic.  Gross  injustice  to  some  one 
part  of  the  country,  or  class  of  the  people,  is  unavoidable  in 
so  huge  a  realm.  From  the  foundation  of  the  Government 
agriculture  has  been  pillaged  to  build  up  manufactures.  Public 
ftmds  have  been  diverted  by  the  billion  to  embellish  the  Xorth. 
The  wealthy  classes  really  pay  no  Federal  tax.  The  corpora- 
tions pay  none.  National  legislation  is  bought  and  sold. 
National  finance  is  given  over  to  the  exploitation  of  the  bank- 
ing fraternity.  If  ever  the  common  people  of  the  land  can  be 
made  to  understand  how  they  are  robbed  under  the  forms  of 
legislation — if  ever  our  financial  and  tariff  systems  are  so 
exposed  that  their  wickedness  is  clearly  seen. — there  will  be  a 
revolution  which  will  shake  the  world. 

-"Rut  I  am  an  old  man.  My  day  is  passed.  The  people  seem 
to  have  lost  heart.  The  South  is  ruled  by  as  cowardly  and 
venal  a  lot  of  place-hunting  politicians  as  ever  lived.  Like 


290  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


putrid  bodies  in  the  stream,  they  rise  as  they  rot.  They  would 
sell  their  souls  for  office.  They' lick  the  feet  of  Tammany  cor- 
ruptionists,  and  grovel  in  the  dust  before  Northern  money. 
But  Southern  pride  and  principle  will  one  day  assert  them- 
selves again.  Our  people  will  not  always  submit  to  this 
damnable  state  of  affairs.  The  issues  will  be  rejoined  some 
day  and  the  South  will  be  better  prepared. 

"Unless  the  North  lets  us  alone,  ceases  to  oppose  us  with 
unjust  legislation,  quits  this  everlasting  business  of  trying  to 
force  us  to  accept  the  nigger  as  an  equal — fate  has  no  day 
more  sure  to  come  than  another  colossal  Civil  War  in  which 
the  East  and  North  will  be  crushed  by  the  South  and  West." 

uBut  General,"  said  one  of  the  crowd,  "Mr.  Stephens  coun- 
sels peace." 

"I  don't  care  a  damn  if  he  does !"  blurted  Toombs. 

"Henry  Grady  cries  peace  too,  and  so  does  Jack  Gordon  and 
Ben  Hill  and  Lushe  Lamar.  What  do  I  care  for  the  talk  of 
politicians  and  opportunists?  They  may  cry  'Peace!'  till  the 
heavens  fall,  but  there  will  not  be  peace  till  good-will  between 
sections  is  restored ;  and  good  will  cannot  be  restored  by  mere 
chin  music  and  sweet  air.  Let  them  give  us  justice,  let  them 
quit  bothering  our  domestic  affairs,  let  them  get  over  their 
hallucination  that  the  nigger  is  a  white  gentleman  accidentally 
clothed  in  a  black  skin.  Then,  the  LTnion  may  again  be  one  of 
love  and  patriotism.  At  present,  it  is  one  of  force,  and  no 
brave  people  can  long  be  held  down  by  force. 

"Boys  excuse  me — I've  got  to  go  and  send  a  telegram  to 
General  Grant !" 

In  his  majestic  way  Toombs  stalked  over  to  the  desk  of  the 
telegraph  operator,  and  penned  a  despatch. 

The  operator  looked  pretty  wild  about  the  eyes  as  he  scanned 
the  words  to  figure  the  cost;  and  well  he  might  for  the  tele- 
gram read: 
"General  U.  S.  Grant, 

"San  Francisco. 

"You  fought  for  your  country  and  won.  I  fought  for  mine 
and  lost.  Death  to  the  Union ! 

"R.  Toombs." 

This  dispatch  was  handed  to  General  Grant  during  the 
festivities  which  celebrated  his  return  home  from  his  voyage 
around  the  world.  He  read  it,  smiled  slightly  and  said  never 
a  word.  It  was  the  despairing  cry  of  the  baffled  minority, 
unheeded  then  and  now  by  a  militant,  irresistible,  aggressive 
majority. 

Being  by  nature  a  non-combatant,  ready  to  crawl  through 
a  barbed  wire  fence  at  any  time  to  avoid  strife  of  any  kind, 
I  was  greatly  disturbed  in  my  mind  by  Toombs'  talk.  Finding 


Sketches:  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


291 


Mr.  Stephens  almost  alone  in  his  room.  I  told  him  what  the  old 
General  had  said,  and  asked  him  what- he  thought  of  it.  He 
smiled,  and  pushed  his  roller  chair  back  and  forth  as  he 
answered :  "Oh,  well,  Toombs  talks  sometimes  just  to  hear 
himself  talk.  He  loves  to  create  a  sensation  and  arouse  anta- 
gonism.   Were  there  any  Northern  travellers  down  there  T* 

I  answered  that  there  were :  and  repeated  what  Toombs  had 
said. 

Mr.  Stephens'  eyes  danced  with  merriment :  he  said.  "Toombs 
is  never  so  wild  as  when  he  knows  some  Xorthern  man  is 
listening  to  what  he  says.  He  delights  in  sticking  pins  in 
them." 

"Then  you  don't  fear  another  war  between  the  sections?"' 
I  asked.  "'No,  I  do  not.  North  and  South  are  being  knit 
together  more  inseparably  every  day  by  the  imperishable 
bonds  of  self-interest.  Commerce,  banks,  manufactures,  mines, 
foundries,  railroads — every  new  investment  of  Northern  money 
in  Southern  fields  is  an  additional  rivet  in  the  clamps  which 
holds  the  two  sections  together.  Xo:  there  will  never  be 
another  secession  or  war  between  the  sections!*' 

"But  the  negro  ?"  I  ventured  to  ask. 

"It  is  a  question  which  will  settle  itself."  he  answered. 

"The  Xorth  will  grow  cold  after  a  while,  and  will  see  things 
as  they  are.  They  will  learn  to  know  the  negro.  Blacks  will 
go  Xorth  and  whites  will  come  South  until  the  facts  will  be 
clear  to  all.  Xorthern  intelligence  will  realize  that  the  negro 
is  not  a  white  man  with  a  black  skin.  The  Civil  AVar  was  to  a 
great  extent  the  result  of  misunderstanding.  Such  a  calamity 
will  not  occur  again.  Xoble  men  and  women  throughout  the 
Xorth  will  gradually  waken  to  the  truth,  and  the  fashion  of 
idealizing  the  negro  will  pass  away.*' 

"Then  there  is  no  reason  to  fear  social  equality?" 

"Xone  whatever.  There  never  was  such  a  thing  as  social 
equality,  even  among  the  whites.  There  will  always  be  negroes 
who  will  prove  themselves  to  be  vastly  superior  to  the  masses 
of  their  race.  Such  exceptions  may  be  treated  with  something 
of  the  consideration  which  is  the  due  of  the  average  white  man. 
In  like  manner,  there  were  exceptional  Indians  who  used  to  be 
treated  as  social  equals  by  the  whites,  but  the  mass  of  the 
Indian  race  were  never  admitted  to  anything  like  social 
equality.    So  as  to  the  Chinese. 

"The  Xorth  understands  the  race  prejudice  against  the 
Indians  for  they  shared  it.  She  understands  a  Californian's 
distate  for  the  Chinaman.  In  God's  own  time  she  will  under- 
stand the  Southern  prejudice  against  the  negro.  Then  she  will 
cease  to  interfere.   The  Xorth  has  never  understood  the  negro. 


31— Sketches 


292  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


nor  the  negro  question.  In  the  days  of  slavery  she  was  deceived 
about  conditions  here,  and  she  is  being  deceived  now. 

"But  I  know  enough  about  racial  history  to  believe  that 
blood  will  always  be  thicker  than  water,  and  that  the  white 
men  of  the  North  can  never  be  held  to  any  policy  whose  inten- 
tion is  to  degrade  the  whites  in  the  interest  of  the  blacks.  It 
would  be  too  horribbly  cruel  and  unnatural. 

"San  Domingo,  Hayti,  Liberia,  Africa — from  all  these  will 
come  object  lessons  and  prophetic  warnings,  which  will  rouse 
the  North  to  the  perils  of  those  who  indulge  in  illusions  about 
the  negro. 

"When  it  has  sunk  deep  in  the  minds  of  the  Northern  people 
that  nothing  keeps  the  Southern  negro  from  relapsing  into 
barbarism  save  the  example,  the  discipline,  and  the  driving- 
power  of  the  whites,  they  will  feel  toward  the  weak,  super- 
stitious, lustful,  inflammable,  dangerous  creature  just  as  we 
do." 

I  rose  to  say  "Good  night,"  but  the  aged  statesman  held  me 
a  moment  by  the  hand  as  was  his  habit  with  young  people 
whom  he  liked.  "There  was  one  thing,  Mr.  Horton,  which 
Toombs  said  that  I  endorse." 

I  was  all  attention. 

"If  ever  there  is  another  war  in  this  republic  it  will  not  be 
sectional,  but  social.  There  is  grave  danger  of  bloody  strife 
between  classes — the  too  rich  and  the  too  poor,  the  illegally 
plundered  and  the  lawless  plunderers.  If  ever  the  masses  of 
the  people  can  be  made  to  understand  our  system  of  class- 
legislation,  taxes  and  finance,  there  will  be  trenchant  reform 
or  frightful  revolution." 

As  he  uttered  these  words,  in  his  most  earnest  manner,  the 
old  man's  eyes  blazed  with  their  ancient  lustre,  and  his 
withered  right  hand  smote  its  fellow,  as  it  had  done  in  the 
days  when  he  warned  his  people  not  to  go  out  of  the  Union. 


Teasing  a  Single-Taxer 


The  following  letter,  given  in  full,  is  published  from  a  sense 
of  fairness  to  our  friends,  the  Single-Taxers : 

Litchfield,  111. 

Hon.  Thos.  E.  Watson,  Thomson,  Georgia. 

Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  your  single-tax  articles:  About  one 
hundred  years  ago  a  young  Scotchman  named  Erskine  located  in 
St.  Louis,  Mo.  He  became  owner  of  a  lot  50x14  7  feet  in  dimensions, 
at  the  northeast  corner  of  Eighth  and  Olive  streets,  in  the  brush 
at  that  time,  for  which  he  paid  $5  00.  He  paid  the  taxes  on  it  for  a 
few  years — until  somebody  wanted  it — when  he  leased  it  for  twenty- 
five  years  at  so  much  a  year  ground  rent — binding  tne  lessee  to  make 
certain  improvements,  to  be  the  property  of  the  owner  of  the  land 
at  the  expiration  of  the  lease,  tne  lessees  meantime  to  pay  all  taxes 
of  whatever  sort.  At  the  expiration  of  the  twenty-five  years  he 
leased  it  again,  binding  the  lessee  to  tear  down  the  old  improve- 
ments and  make  new  ones  costing  much  more,  to  pay  all  taxes  as 
before  and  to  pay  a  big  advance  on  the  ground  rent.  Thus  he  and 
his  heirs  continued  to  do  until  the  last  twenty-five  year  lease 
expired  January  1,  1895.  Then  the  estate  leased  it  again  for  ninety- 
nine  years  for  $20,000  a  year,  ground  rent  and  improvements,  taxes 
to  follow  as  in  previous  leases;  and  at  present  one  of  the  biggest 
skyscripers  in  the  city  occupies  the  lot.  Understand,  since  the  date 
of  the  first  twenty-five  year  lease  the  owners  of  this  lot  have  never 
paid  any  taxes  or  improvements  and  the  growth  of  the  city  has 
made  the  enormous  increase  in  the  value  of  this  50x147  feet  of 
ground,  until,  for  the  ninety-nine  years  from  1895,  the  heirs  of  this 
estate  have  an  income  of  $20,000  a  year  without  turning  a  hand 
for  it.  The  city  as  a  whole  created  this  $2  0,000  a  year  in  the  land 
value  of  this  lot  and  the  city  ought  to  have  it. 

If  not,  why  not?  What  have  the  heirs  of  this  estate  done  to 
entitle  them  to  $20,000  a  year  for  the  next  ninety  years? 

The  writer  of  the  foregoing  doubtless  believed  he  had  dealt 
me  a  "sock  dolager.*'  His  illustration  is  merely  the  well-worn 
"Astor  estate  argument"  carried  down  to  St.  Louis,  and  given 
a  change  in  name. 

To  the  superficial  mind,  it  carries  overwhelming  conviction. 
But  it  will  not  bear  analysis.  The  train  of  reasoning  which 
would  confiscate  the  Astor  title  in  New  York  and  the  Erskine 
title  in  St.  Louis  would  explode  pretty  nearly  every  vested 
interest  on  earth. 

At  the  time  Astor  bought  in  New  York,  and  Erskine  bought 
in  St.  Louis,  every  other  human  being  had  the  same  oppor- 
tunity. They  came  into  new  communities  and  "staked  out 
their  claims/'  complying  with  the  laws  which  the  community 
had  made. 

They  took  their  chances  on  the  investment.    It  happened 


294  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

that  their  judgment  was  vindicated  by  events.  It  might  have 
happened  otherwise.  In  thousands  of  cases  it  has  happened 
otherwise.  Some  men  just  naturally  have  more  sense  than 
others — more  foresight,  more  pluck,  more  strength  of  purpose, 
more  skill  in  knowing  when  and  how  to  hit.  Astor  struck  it 
right,  but  how  many  thousands  of  men  have  put  their  money 
into  town  property  believing  the  town  would  become  a  city 
when  in  fact  the  town  couldn't  even  hold  its  own  as  a  town? 
You  will  find  dismal  remains  of  busted  "boom  towns"  all  over 
the  Union,  to  say  nothing  of  those  which  once  lived  but  which 
are  now  classed  as  "dead."  Shall  Society  make  good  the  losses 
of  those  men  who  bet  on  the  wrong  town  ? 

How  absurd  such  a  proposition  would  be !  Yet  Erskine  and 
Astor  did  no  more  than  put  their  stake  on  the  wnining  town. 
If  your  logic  confiscates  the  winnings,  why  shouldn't  it  make 
good  the  losses  ? 

No  law  compelled  a  hundred  thousand  people  to  go  to  New 
York,  or  St.  Louis,  to  live  after  the  first  hundred  thousand 
had  gone  there.  No  law  compels  people  to  pack  themselves 
into  the  big  cities.  Humanity  would  be  better  off  if  they  did 
not  do  so.  The  world  would  be  cleaner,  happier,  and  better  if 
population  would  distribute  itself  more  evenly.  The  unuttera- 
ble horror  of  life  in  the  great  cities  would  not  then  stagger 
one's  faith  in  the  progress  of  civilization. 

But  the  crowding  does  occur,  nevertheless,  and  it  does  not 
seem  to  me  that  the  early  settler,  who  bought  when  land  was 
cheap,  should  be  stripped  of  his  property  simply  because  the 
little  town  grew  to  be  a  large  city. 

If  I  find  it  to  my  interest  to  sell  out  my  holdings  in  the  town 
of  Thomson  and  to  rent  a  house  from  the  Erskine  estate  in 
St.  Louis,  I  do  so  with  my  eyes  open.  Nobody  compels  me  to 
do  it.  If,  as  a  part  of  the  rent,  I  also  pay  Erskine's  taxes  to 
the  State  and  city,  that's  my  lookout.  No  law  compels  me  to 
do  it.   And  I  don't  do  it  unless  I  find  it  to  my  interest  to  do  it. 

The  same  conditions  which  have  added  to  the  value  of  the 
Astor  and  Erskine  land  have  constituted  those  attractions 
which  would  have  induced  me  to  sell  out  in  Thomson  and  go  to 
New  York  or  St.  Louis.  These  cities  must  possess  certain 
advantages,  real  or  imaginary,  over  the  average  town,  and 
those  advantages — whatever  they  are — make  up  the  sum  total 
of  the  inducements  which  lead  several  million  people  to  crowd 
together,  as  they  do  on  Manhattan  Island  and  its  immediate 
vicinity. 

No  merchant  in  a  small  town  has  the  opportunities  which 
the  large  city  gives.  Will  you  confiscate  the  profits  of  the 
New  York  merchant?  If  not,  why  not?  He,  also,  reaps  his 
gains  from  the  fact  that  so  many  people  live  so  close  together. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary.  Etc. 


295 


The  newspaper  publisher  has  greater  opportunities  in  a  city 
like  New  York  than  in  a  town  like  Thomson.  Will  you  con- 
fiscate the  newspapers  of  Mr.  Hearst  because  they  profit  by 
the  fact  that  so  many  people  bunch  themselves  together?  If 
not,  why  not  ? 

Wonderful  as  is  the  genius  of  Mr.  Hearst  and  of  his  chief 
editor,  Mr.  Brisbane,  they  could  not  make  a  great  deal  of 
money  out  of  two  daily  newspapers  published  in  Thomson, 
Georgia. 

My  town  is  a  great  town,  but  less  than  two  thousand  people 
have  as  yet  discovered  the  fact.  The  other  benighted  millions 
of  our  fellow-citizens  may  catch  on.  a  hundred  years  from  now. 
and  then  my  modest  patrimony  in  Thomson  will  call  forth 
communistic  howls.  At  present  I  do  the  howling — when  I  look 
at  the  bill  for  taxes. 

Many  a  time  in  the  history  of  New  York  the  original  Astors 
may  have  been  sorely  tempted  to  sell  out  and  invest  elsewhere. 
Hundreds  of  owners,  who  had  just  as  good  a  thing  as  Astor 
had.  did  lose  confidence,  sell  out  and  invest  elsewhere.  Astor 
held  on:  and  now.  after  the  lapse  of  generations,  comes  the 
brilliant  William  R.  Hearst  and  the  brilliant  Arthur  Bris- 
bane, and  they  gloriously,  beneficently  reap  the  advantage  of 
the  mere  physical  facts  in  the  case — namely,  that  New  York 
and  its  adjacent  towns  supply  millions  of  readers  to  the  morn- 
ing and  evening  newspapers. 

The  Single-Taxers  and  Socialists  take  a  toe-hold  upon  the 
argument  that  '*  Astors  revenue  is  increased  by  the  bare 
increase  of  population:  the  city  made  itself  big:  therefore  the 
city,  and  not  Astor,  should  have  the  increase  in  land  value." 

Evidently,  this  reasoning  is  superb,  but  I  have  my  doubts 
as  to  whether  Mr.  Hearst  would  like  to  see  the  muzzle  of  such 
a  gun  pointed  his  way. 

Astors  genius  was  manifest  in  the  selection  of  his  location 
and  in  his  stubborn  holding  on.  as  that  of  Horace  Greeley. 
Pulitzer,  and  Hearst  in  the  conduct  of  their  newspapers,  but 
Greeley,  Pulitzer  and  Hearst  profited  by  the  same  physical 
conditions  that  increased  the  Astor  estate.  In  each  case,  the 
newspaper  publisher  exploited  a  great  city  which  he  had  had 
nothing  to  do  with  making  great.  In  each  case  the  newspaper 
profited  by  the  bigness  of  the  city,  just  as  Astor  did. 

Again  we  must  remember  that  mere  numbers  do  not  make 
a  city  great.  The  right  kind  of  men  must  be  in  the  lead. 
Three  million  Digger  Indians  dumped  into  another  Manhattan 
Island,  wouldn't  make  another  New  York.  Supplant  the 
present  inhabitants  of  New  York  with  an  equal  number  of 
blacks  from  the  Congo  Free  State,  and  what  do  you  guess 


296  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


would  be  the  effect  upon  the  value  of  the  Astor  estate  and  the 
Hearst  newspapers? 

In  the  up-building  of  great  cities,  you  may  be  sure  that 
great  men  were  enlisted.  The  men  who  pioneered  New  York, 
Chicago,  Boston,  Galveston,  San  Francisco,  St.  Louis,  New 
Orleans,  Philadelphia  and  the  others  were  in  many  respects 
the  equals  of  the  men  who  built  our  Republic.  If  you  will 
read  the  volumes  called  "The  Old  Merchants  of  New  York," 
you  will  understand  what  I  mean. 

My  point  is  that  quality  rather  than  quantity  makes  the 
great  city.  New  York  is  not  great  because  of  the  hordes  of  the 
slums ;  but  in  spite  of  them. 

Now,  to  confiscate  that  which  the  great  men  create,  and 
dump  it,  practically,  into  the  common  pot,  where  all  are  equally 
entitled  to  an  equal  share  of  the  pot-liquor,  does  not  seem  just. 

The  equity  of  the  case  is  met,  not  by  confiscation,  but  by 
taxing  each  estate  pro  rata,  compelling  each  citizen  to  con- 
tribute to  the  support  of  the  government  in  accordance  with 
his  wealth. 

A  man,  usually  a  tenderfoot,  stumbles  upon  a  gold  mine,  or 
a  diamond  field. 
Is  it  his? 

If  he  complies  with  the  regulations  made  for  such  cases, 
it  is  his. 

By  what  right? 

By  that  which  we  used  when  we  shot  the  Indians  away  from 
their  homes. 

The  right  of  discovery. 

Nature  made  the  gold  and  the  diamonds,  but  Nature  hid 
them;  consequently  we  give  them  to  the  fortunate  finder. 

But  does  it  occur  to  you,  Mr.  Single-Taxer,  that  the  gold 
and  the  diamonds  would  not  be  worth  picking  up  in  the  road 
if  it  were  not  for  the  very  same  general  condition  of  things 
which  put  value  into  the  Astor  estate? 

The  value  of  the  gold  and  the  diamonds  depends  upon  the 
standards  of  our  civilization. 

They  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  intrinsic  value  at  all.  In 
no  sense  of  the  word  are  diamonds  necessary  to  the  human 
race,  as  wheat  and  corn  and  cotton  are. 

The  finder  of  the  gold  and  the  diamonds  adds  nothing  to 
their  value. 

He  reaps  the  benefit  of  what  the  human  race  has  been  doing 
for  thousands  of  years.  He  gets  his  fortune  out  of  conditions 
which  he  did  not  help  to  make.  He  deserves  no  credit  what- 
ever for  the  system  of  things  which  prevails  and  which  gives 
immense  value  to  gold  and  diamonds.    Yet  even  the  single- 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  297 

taxer  will  not  dispute  his  right  to  reap  the  benefits  of  the  sys- 
tem into  which  he  came  by  birth. 

In  Voltaire's  famous  book,  "Candide,"  the  hero's  adventures 
carry  him  into  a  South  American  State,  peopled  by  Indians, 
where  gold  is  so  plentiful  that  the  natives  value  it  no  more 
than  they  value  common  mud.  They  laughingly  tell  Candide 
that  he  can  have  as  much  of  it  as  he  wants.  Naturally  he 
wants  all  he  can  carry  away,  and  he  proceeds  to  load  up.  In 
a  most  diverting  manner  Voltaire  relates  how  Candide  lost 
most  of  his  treasure  on  his  way  home  to  France.  He  manages 
to  hold  on  to  enough,  however,  to  make  him  rich  in  France. 

The  gold,  in  South  America,  had  no  value!  In  France,  a 
small  amount  was  wealth. 

Why? 

Because  of  Civilization,  its  laws,  tastes,  customs,  standards. 

Candide,  being  a  Frenchman,  got  the  benefit  of  the  French 
system  as  a  birth-right.  Of  course,  he  inherited  the  dis- 
advantages along  with  the  advantages !  just  as  we  do  in  our 
Republic. 

Take  another  illustration ! 

A  fisherman  finds  a  pearl,  either  by  design  or  accident.  In 
either  event,  the  Single-Taxer  does  not  combat  the  proposition 
that  the  pearl  belongs  to  the  fisherman.  The  pearl  was  under- 
neath the  water,  doing  no  good  to  anyone.  Intrinsically  it 
had  no  value.  It  was  a  mere  pebble  amidst  millions  of  pebbles. 
Even  when  it  was  found  to  be  different  from  the  other  pebbles, 
in  color,  etc.,  it  yet  remained  intrinsically  useless.  The  fisher- 
man could  not  eat  it  when  hungry,  drink  it  when  thirsty, 
clothe  himself  with  it  when  naked,  or  warm  himself  by  it 
when  cold.  On  the  basis  of  Nature's  arrangements,  the  pearl 
was  worth  less  to  the  fisherman  than  a  peck  of  corn. 

But  the  finding  of  the  pearl  raised  the  fisherman  to  riches. 
The  peculiar  kind  of  pebble  which  he  found  turned  out  to  be 
worth  thousands  of  dollars. 

Why? 

Because  the  laws  of  Fashion,  the  cravings  of  Taste  and 
Pride  made  the  market  for  the  pearl,  and  this  market 
for  the  pearl,  which  he  had  had  nothing  to  do  with  making, 
brought  the  fisherman  wealth. 

All  the  fashionable  world  made  the  market  for  the  pearl : 
according  to  Single-Tax  logic  the  fashionable  world  should 
have  thrown  the  fisherman  down  and  taken  the  pearl  away 
from  him. 

All  of  us  are  familiar  with  the  story  of  the  Florida  Indian 
queen  who  swapped  a  long  string  of  large  pearls  to  De  Soto 
for  a  few  bits  of  bright  colored  velvet.  Under  the  standards 


298  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

of  barbarism,  the  pearls  had  no  greater  value  to  the  queen 
than  the  bits  of  velvet;  under  the  standards  of  civilization  the 
pearls  were  worth  a  king's  ransom  to  De  Soto ;  both  the  queen 
and  the  Spaniard  were  inheritors  of  fixed  conditions. 

In  many  other  ways,  I  could  illustrate  the  truth  of  the 
statement  that  the  argument  against  the  Erskine  title  is  an 
argument  that  undermines  almost  everything.  Born  to  this 
European  system  of  things,  we  inherit  from  all  the  great  men 
of  the  past :  we  are  the  legatees  of  their  struggles,  their  suffer- 
ings, their  aspirations,  their  victories.  Every  boy  that  comes 
out  of  our  schools,  equipped  for  his  life-battle,  wears  armor 
which  was  hundreds  of  years  in  forging,  gets  the  benefit  of 
conceptions,  suggestions,  plans  and  experiments  which  reach 
back  to  Alfred  the  Great.  The  boy  gave  no  hand  to  the  build- 
ing of  the  system.  He  gets  the  benefit  of  what  was  done  by 
others,  long  before  his  ancestors  set  foot  in  the  land.  Every 
man  and  woman  now  living  in  the  European-American  world 
is  a  legatee  of  ages  of  the  best  efforts  of  the  best  men  and 
women  of  the  race.  All  of  us  get  the  benefit  of  conditions 
which  we  did  not  bring  about.  We  also  must  bear  burdens 
which  came  to  us  along  with  the  inheritance,  for  our  system, 
like  ourselves,  is  wonderfully  and  fearfully  made. 

Some  of  these  burdens  worry  me  more  than  the  Astor  estate 
does,  because  they  are  unavoidable. 

The  Astor  estate  is  pegged  down  on  Manhattan  Island.  It 
can't  get  away.  It  can't  chase  me  down  to  Thomson.  If  I 
don't  want  to  get  bit  by  that  particular  snake,  I  needn't  go  near 
its  hole.  There  is  not  a  man  in  New  York  who  cannot  escape 
the  Astor  estate  if  he  wants  to ;  all  that  is  necessary  is  that  he 
shall  pull  up  stakes  and  leave.  There  are  a  good  many 
desirable  places  to  live  on  in  this  world  besides  New  York — 
though  it  is  difficult  to  persuade  a  New  Yorker  to  that  effect. 

The  inherited  burdens  which  worry  me  most  are  those  that 
I  cannot  resist  and  cannot  escape.  They  hold  me  prisoner,  no 
matter  where  I  go.  What  those  inherited  burdens  are,  you 
know  if  you  have  been  a  reader  of  my  writings. 

With  200,000,000  acres  of  public  domain  awaiting  the 
settler;  with  irrigation  plans  in  operation  which  will  add  at 
least  300,000,000  acres  more;  with  abandoned  farms  through- 
out the  land  which  can  be  bought  for  less  than  the  houses  on 
the  land  cost,  I  am  not  bothering  my  head  about  the  Astor 
estate,  or  that  Erskine  property. 

Of  course,  as  long  as  several  million  people  want  the  Astor 
land,  and  each  of  them  competes  for  that  particular  spot  of 
ground,  all  the  angels  in  heaven  couldn't  keep  the  price  from 
advancing.    If  everybody  wants  the  same  thing  at  the  same 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  299 

time,  the  upward  tendency  of  the  market  is  not  to  be  checked 
by  remonstrance,  argument,  protest  or  pleading. 

One  of  the  "Old  Masters"  may  not  be  worth  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  dollars,  but  if  a  great  number  of  wealthy  snobs 
compete  for  the  painting,  it  fetches  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars. 

Likewise,  those  hideous  old  China  and  Japanese  pots  and 
vases  may  not  be  worth  a  place  in  the  kitchen :  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned  I  wouldn't  give  ten  dollars  a  ton  for  them;  but  if 
they  become  a  fad  among  the  rich,  and  thousands  of  men  and 
women  go  into  competition  to  see  who  can  pay  the  highest 
price  for  the  ugliest  old  vase— why,  the  market  for  ugliness 
gets  so  stiff  that  I  almost  conclude  to  have  my  own  features 
cast  into  antique  Japanese  mugs. 

The  moment  those  three  million  men  quit  wanting  Astor 
land,  all  at  the  same  time,  that  moment  its  value  will  begin 
to  decline.  But  so  long  as  that  number  of  men  want  their 
land  in  the  same  spot,  at  the  same  time,  the  identical  principle 
which  caused  Maud  S.  to  bring  $40,000  when  Robert  Bonner 
bought  her,  will  uphold  the  market  price  of  the  Astor  land. 
And  society  has  no  more  right  to  confiscate  .  Astor's  title 
because  he  got  what  so  many  others  want,  than  it  has  to  confis- 
cate the  title  to  the  fastest  race-horse,  the  finest  painting,  or 
the  ugliest  Japanese  pot. 


Paper  Money  and  John  Law 

In  all  civilized  countries  the  requirements  of  commerce 
have  compelled  the  use  of  paper  money.  Not  for  a  single  day 
could  the  trade  of  Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Russia  or 
the  United  States  be  sustained  by  metallic  money  alone. 

The  reasons  are  obvious.  The  metallic  money  is  too  scarce: 
it  is  too  inconvenient :  it  is  too  easily  cornered :  it  is  too  slow : 
it  is  too  uncertain  in  its  volume ;  it  is  too  soft  to  bear  the 
incessant  handling. 

For  these  reasons,  and  others,  metallic  money  rarely  cir- 
culates (in  the  full  sense  of  the  word)  during  these  rushing 
days  of  modern  commerce.  Paper  money  really  does  the 
exchange  business  of  the  world.  But  the  Banks  have  seized 
upon  the  paper  money  business,  and  they  monopolize  it. 
They  have  driven  the  Government  out  of  the  governmental 
business  of  creating  the  money. 

They  have  usurped  the  enormous  power  of  expanding  and 
contracting  the  volume  of  the  currency  on  which  the  business 
of  the  world  is  done. 

In  this  manner  the  Banks  hold  the  world  in  chains.  Their 
feet  are  upon  the  necks  of  the  markets.  They  shrink  the 
volume  of  money,  and  prices  fall.  They  expand  the  volume  of 
money  and  prices  rise. 

Voltaire,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  a  friend,  explaining  how 
he,  residing  at  Ferney,  on  the  borders  of  Switzerland,  could 
so  readily  make  money  in  Paris,  wrote  : 

"A  friend  of  mine  who  is  a  director  in  the  Bank  of  France 
lets  me  know  in  advance  when  they  desire  to  lower  prices  by 
decreasing  the  amount  of  money,  and  then  I  sell;  he  also  lets 
me  know  in  advance  when  they  decide  to  raise  prices  by 
increasing  the  supply  of  money,  and  then  I  buy." 

The  secret  which  Voltaire  so  frankly  communicated  to  his 
correspondent  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  is  the  secret  of 
the  banker  policv  of  today. 

Every  argument  against  paper  money  comes  from  those  who 
have  seized  upon  this  great  governmental  function,  and  who 
are  now  using  it  for  their  own  gain  and  to  the  injury  of  their 
fellow-citizens. 

Populism  says:  coin  all  the  gold,  coin  all  the  silver  at  the 
same  mercantile  value  which  existed  before  you  sunk  the  value 
of  silver  by  making  laws  against  it :  then  issue  national  paper 
money  in  place  of  the  paper  money  of  the  Banks,  and  don't 
say  that  this  paper  money  shall  only  have  the  power  of  being 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


301 


swapped  for  a  metallic  dollar,  but  declare  by  law  that  this 
paper  dollar  of  the  Government  shall  be  receivable  at  its  face 
-value  for  all  debts  and  taxes — and  you  will  have  a  dollar 
which  is  as  strong  as  your  Government,  and  as  rich  as  your 
people. 

The  law  overrides  us  all — controls  our  wealth  and  commands 
our  obedience :  Let  the  law  say  that  a  paper  dollar  shall  be 
good  for  taxes,  good  for  public  and  private  debts,  good  for  all 
the  purposes  which  gold  dollars  answer,  and  you'll  have  paper 
dollars  going  side  by  side,  as  equals,  with  gold  dollars — as  far 
as  the  flag  floats,  and  as  long  as  the  Government  stands. 

What  will  be  "back  of"  such  paper  dollars? 

The  credit  of  the  Government  and  the  power  of  the  law. 

The  same  Government  Credit  which  bears  up  an  issue  of 
bonds,  burdened  with  interest,  would  surely  bear  up  an  equal 
amount  of  paper  dollars  not  burdened  with  interest.  The 
credit  which  Cleveland  used  to  float  a  quarter  billion  of  bonds 
to  gratify  the  Wall  Street  millionaires  was  strong  enough  to 
bear  that  ungodly  burden  and  carry  the  bonds  to  a  magnificent 
premium.  The  bonds  rose  with  the  sun  on  the  day  that  fol- 
lowed the  midnight  deal  between  President  Cleveland  and  the 
Wall  Street  bankers. 

Why  should  editors  be  so  mortally  afraid  to  see  the  national 
credit  tested  in  the  interest  of  the  people,  by  the  issue  of  as 
much  money,  in  paper  dollars,  as  the  bonds  issued  by  Cleve- 
land to  the  millionaires  amount  to  \ 

There  can  be  only  one  reply :  the  Banks  are  using  the  paper 
money  monopoly,  and  they  do  not  intend  to  return  this  pre- 
rogative to  the  Government  from  which  they  took  it. 

How  much  paper  money  would  you  have  \ 

No  man  can  say  definitely,  and  more  than  he  can  say  just 
how  much  he  should  eat  and  just  how  much  he  shall  drink. 
The  question  must  be  left  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Government. 

Can't  the  Government  decide  it  as  impartially  as  the  Banks 
now  decide  it  \ 

Would  it  not  be  as  safe  to  intrust  the  decision  to  ail  the  peo- 
ple in  Congress  assembled  as  to  intrust  it  to  J.  Pierpont  Mor- 
gan. August  Belmont.  Thomas  F.  Ryan  and  other  Bank  man- 
nates  who  meet  in  the  private  parlor  of  a  Wall  Street  bank  \ 

If  we  must  submit  to  the  Government  on  questions  of 
property,  of  liberty  and  of  life,  shall  it  be  said  that  we  must 
not  submit  to  it  on  questions  of  finance  \ 

Cannot  the  Government  as  safelv  say  how  many  paper  dol- 
lars we  shall  have  as  it  can  say  how  many  troops  shall  com- 
pose the  Army,  how  many  post-offices  shall  distribute  the  mail, 
how  many  officeholders  shall  collect  its  revenues,  how  much  tax 


302  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


we  shall  pay,  and  how  many  dollars  shall  be  spent  every  two 
years  ? 

If  the  Government  can't  govern,  then  it  should  quit  the 
business,  and  let  the  banks  boss  the  job. 

But  the  creation  of  money  is  not  a  banking  functon;  they 
have  usurped  it;  the  making  of  money  is  a  governmental 
function,  and  the  Government  should  unhorse  the  Banks,  and 
get  back  into  the  saddle  itself. 

Some  contend  that  the  Government  has  no  constitutional 
power  to  create  money  out  of  paper. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  other- 
wise. It  has  decided  that  the  words  "coin  money"  must  be 
taken  in  the  sense  "make  money,"  or  "create  money,"  and  that 
the  Government  can  in  its  discretion  use  paper  or  any  other 
material  in  the  creation  of  its  money. 

Those  who  oppose  paper  money  continually  harp  on  John 
Law  and  his  "Mississippi  Bubble."  I  wonder  sometimes,  how 
much  these  critics  know  about  John  Law.  This  scribe  has 
given  some  study  to  the  career  and  financial  principles  of  the 
said  John  Law,  and  he  ventures  to  say  that  Law  has  been 
utterly  misunderstood.  We  have  not  studied  Law's  own 
books;  we  have  studied  him  through  the  books  of  those  who 
condemn  him,  and  yet  we  say  that  John  Law  has  not  been 
impartially  tried  nor  justly  condemned.  John  Law's  theory 
of  finance  is  the  very  same  as  that  upon  which  Lord  Macaulay 
eulogized  the  National  Debt  of  Great  Britain.  John  Law's 
theory  of  finance  is  the  very  same  as  that  which  the  statesmen 
of  Great  Britain  adopted  when  they  wanted  more  money  for 
the  overthrow  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte.  John  Law's  theory 
was  put  into  practice  by  our  own  Government  when  it  needed 
more  money  with  which  to  put  down  the  Southern  Confed- 
eracy, gold  and  silver  having  "hid  out,"  as  they  always  do 
when  most  needed. 

John  Law's  bank  in  Paris  was  the  parent  of  the  present 
Bank  of  France,  and  was  a  brilliant  success  until  the  Regent 
of  France  (the  Duke  of  Orleans)  insisted  upon  its  becoming 
a  Government  bank.  Even, then  it  prospered  until  Law  fell 
into  the  clutches  of  the  most  voracious  and  unprincipled  aristo- 
crats that  ever  plundered  a  people.  The  Regent  and  his 
favorite  nobles  robbed  the  bank  and  ruined  it.  That  is  the 
real  truth,  and  I  can  prove  it  from  authorities  unfriendly  to 
Law. 

It  has  been  the  fashion  to  jeer  at  the  "Mississippi  scheme" 
of  Law,  as  though  it  were  the  craziest  of  day-dreams. 
What  is  the  truth  about  it? 

John  Law's  company  owned  the  vast  "Louisiana  Purchase," 
including  New  Orleans  and  the  Mississippi  River,  and  all  the 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  303 

great  States  and  Territories  that  have  since  been  carved  out  of 
that  imperial  domain.  John  Law  "had  as  good  a  thing"  in 
the  United  States  as  the  East  India  Company  of  England  had 
in  India.  He  had  a  far  tetter  thing  than  the  great  Hud- 
sons  Bay  Company  had  in  Canada. 

John  Law  had  not  only  a  magnificent  territorial  empire 
upon  which  to  base  the  value  of  the  stock  he  issued,  but  he 
went  to  work  wisely  and  on  system  to  develop  his  property. 
He  established  a  line  of  vessels  between  New  Orleans  and 
France,  exchanging  the  products  of  one  country  for  the 
other.  He  sent  out  settlers  from  France  to  the  New  World 
just  as  Spain  and  England  did.  Those  settlers  are  represented 
by  their  descendants  in  the  "Louisiana  Purchase"  to  this  day. 
In  other  words,  John  Law  foresaw  the  immense  importance 
of  our  Mississippi  country,  its  vast  waterways,  and  its 
measureless  capacities  for  production.  He  saw  it  in  advance 
of  his  time.    And  that  was  his  crime. 

Jefferson  saw  it  nearly  a  hundred  years  later,  seized  the 
opportunity,  bought  the  John  Law  property,  and  all  men 
praised  Jefferson — justly — and  ridiculed  John  Law — unjustly. 

Out  of  the  John  Law  property  has  been  carved  the  great 
States  of  Louisiana,  Missouri,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Kansas, 
Nebraska,  Minnesota,  the  Dakotas,  Colorado  and  Montana. 

Why  did  Law's  company  fail  ? 

Because  his  associates  demanded  rich  returns  too  quickly. 
They  wanted  to  get  rich  in  a  day.  The  speculative  mania 
seized  the  excitable  French  and  hurried  them  into  madness. 
Law  tried  to  stem  the  torrent,  but  could  not. 

The  nobility  drove  him  into  measures  which  wrecked  all  his 
plans.  They  not  only  compelled  him  to  issue  carloads  of  paper 
money,  but  they  demanded  for  themselves  the  cash  he  had 
in  his  bank — and  thev  got  the  lion's  share  of  it. 

The  Duke  of  Bourbon  and  the  Prince  of  Conti,  members  of 
the  royal  family,  not  to  mention  lesser  nobles,  amassed 
hundreds  of  millions  by  looting  the  bank. 

This  is  history,  not  slander. 

John  Law  was  rich  when  he  went  to  France :  he  was  driven 
into  exile,  penniless. 

While  in  France  he  was  a  very  prince  of  charity — open- 
handed,  affable,  good-hearted,  honest,  sincere.  He  abolished 
many  useless  offices.  He  used  his  influence  to  get  taxes 
lowered  and  equalized.  He  abolished  feudal  exactions  in 
Paris,  and  reduced  the  price  of  wood,  coal  and  fish  one-half. 
He  broke  down  the  feudal  barriers  between  the  different 
provinces  and  established  free  trade  between  the  departments, 
thus  greatly  encouraging  trade  and  benefiting  producers. 

He  left  the  public  debt  less  than  he  found  it.   He  put  into 


304  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

his  enterprises  every  dollar  he  possessed — he  took  nothing 
away  but  the  clothes  he  stood  in. 

Surely  he  was  not  a  common  cheat  and  swindler. 

Many  people  ruined  themselves  speculating  in  his  stock — 
and  many  enriched  themselves.  We  have  no  doubt  that  more 
money  is  lost  and  won  in  one  day's  "operations"  on  the 
Exchanges  of  Paris,  London,  Berlin,  Vienna  and  New  York 
in  this  good  year  of  1912,  than  was  lost  and  won  during  the 
entire  course  of  the  "Gambling  mania"  connected  with  the 
despised  John  Law. 

It  was  mostly  by  speculation  in  the  stock  that  any- 
body (except  Law  himself)  lost  by  Law's  companies. 
The  company  broke  because  it  had  assumed  the  entire 
national  debt  of  France — a  debt  which  represented  all  the 
expenditures  of  the  most  lavish  of  French  Kings,  Louis 
XIV.,  all  his  wars,  all  his  buildings,  all  his  fancy  men  and 
all  his  fancy  women.  When  Law  staggered  under  this  over- 
whelming load  the  State  resumed  the  debt,  and  as  Law  had 
issued  stock  to  cover  the  debt,  the  Government  assumed  the 
payment  of  the  stock.  There  were  reductions  and  scalings, 
but  the  Government's  design  was  to  ascertain  the  actual  cash 
investment  of  each  citizen  who  held  Law's  stock.  When 
ascertained,  the  Government  assumed  payment.  Consequently 
the  holders  of  the  stock  lost  little  or  nothing — and  the  Govern- 
ment lost  nothing  because  it  merely  reassumed  its  own  debt. 


The  Dartmouth  College  Decision. 


The  Editor  of  the  paper,  from  which  the  following  edi- 
torial is  taken,  is  Mr.  Chas.  H.  Hamblin,  who  seems  to  have 
taken  his  knowledge  of  the  Dartmouth  College  case  at  fourth 
or  fifth  hand.  His  statement  that  "The  essence  of  the  Dart- 
mouth College  decision  was  that  a  State  Legislature  cannot 
change  the  obligation  of  a  perpetual  contract  made  by  a  pre- 
vious Legislature,"  is  altogether  erroneous  : 

Some  corporation  lawyers  think  that  Dartmouth  College  decision 
is  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  Probably  it  has  had  as  much  influence 
upon  the  development  of  industrial  civilization  of  the  United  States 
as  any  single  clause  of  that  document.  It  is  the  greatest  of  many 
organic  laws  written  for  the  nation  by  the  impressive  genius  of 
Chief  Justice  John  Marshall. 

The  essence  of  the  Dartmouth  College  decision  was  that  a  State 
Legislature  cannot  change  the  obligation  of  a  perpetual  contract 
made  by  a  previous  legislature.  At  the  beginning  this  was  used 
chiefly  as  an  assertion  of  national  power  and  the  rights  of  the  citi- 
zen against  the  sovereignty  of  a  State. 

Lately  it  has  been  regarded  more  as  subjection  of  the  authority  of 
the  State  to  the  new  born  power  of  corporations  and  the  Supreme 
Court  has  been  working  slowly  and  painfully  in  the  other  direction. 
For  at  least  a  generation  danger  has  been  plainly  seen  in  the  theory 
that  a  permanent  contract,  expressed  or  implied,  with  an  immortal 
Corporation,  however  obtained  in  the  beginning  and  however  con- 
ditions may  have  changed,  cannot  be  altered  by  any  successor  of  the 
legislative  body  that  made  it. 

Certain  students  of  the  historical  basis  of  our  present  industrial 
civilization  have  published  a  pamphlet  on  the  contemporary  history 
of  the  Dartmouth  College  case.  No  questions  of  present-day  con- 
troversy were  involved  in  it,  but  there  was  no  less  bitter  contention 
among  the  political  and  religious  factions  that  desired  control  of 
Dartmouth  College. 

The  pamphlet  in  question  declares  that  the  faction  represented 
in  the  case  by  Daniel  Webster  won  by  appeal  to  the  political  preju- 
dices of  the  Chief  Justice  and  by  secret  intrigue  in  the  Supreme 
Court  rather  than  legal  argument  upon  Constitutional  principles. 
Contemporary  rumor  was  that  the  Supreme  Court  was  originally 
5  to  2  against  Mr.  Webster,  but  that  the  Chief  Justice  held  back  the 
decision  for  a  year,  during  which  four  judges  were  prevailed  upon 
to  change  their  opinions. 

Whether  business  corporations  understood  their  new  rights  under 
this  decision  or  not,  they  soon  improved  them. 

Dartmouth  College  was  a  small  institution  of  learning, 
whch  had  been  chartered  by  the  King  of  England.  In  Great 
Britain  itself  all  such  charters  are  regarded  as  licenses,  and 
not  as  contracts.  They  are  lacking  in  the  very  first  element  of 
a  contract,  in  that  they  do  not  bind  both  parties  mutually. 


306  Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


They  are  what  lawyers  call  "unilateral,"  and  not  "bilateral." 
In  other  words,  the  Crown  granted  the  charter,  but  the  men 
who  were  given  the  license  to  establish  a  school  were  not 
obliged  to  do  it.  The  Crown  obligates  itself  to  allow  the> 
charter-members  to  establish  a  manufacturing  corporation, 
but  the  Crown  did  not  have  the  power  to  compel  the  corpora- 
tion to  do  what  they  are  licensed  to  do :  consequently,  every 
lawyer  will  admit  the  essential  feature  of  a  contract  is  totally 
lacking.  It  is  absolutely  essential  to  a  legal  contract  that  two 
parties  at  least  bind  themselves,  the  one  to  the  other,  to  do  or 
not  to  do  a  certain  thing,  for  a  valuable  consideration.  In  the 
case  of  a  charter,  there  is  no  compact  between  two  persons,  and 
no  valuable  consideration. 

After  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  State  of  New  Hampshire, 
having  taken  the  place  of  the  King  of  England,  so  far  as  the 
Dartmouth  College  and  other  institutions  were  concerned, 
attempted  to  make  a  change  in  the  charter  of  the  college.  > 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  it  was  a  political  fight  between 
the  Democrats  and  the  Federalists.  The  Democrats  won  a 
local  victory,  and  the  Federalists  went  into  the  Court  to 
reverse  it.  When  the  case  was  first  argued,  no  stress  was 
placed  upon  the  point  on  which  Chief  Justice  John  Marshall 
afterwards  .rested  his  opinion.  Jeremiah  Mason,  a  greater 
lawyer  than  Daniel  Webster,  had  placed  in  his  brief  the  fact 
that  the  charter  was  a  contract  which  the  State  was  unable  to 
alter.  Mason  did  not  dwell  upon  it  in  the  lower  Court, 
though  it  remained  in  his  brief. 

In  Lodge's  Life  of  Webster  you  will  find  an  interesting 
story  of  how  the  Federalists  of  New  England  mapped  out  a 
regular  campaign,  whose  purpose  it  was  to  get  the  hearing  in 
U.  S.  Supreme  Court  postponed  until  John  Marshall's  political 
prejudice  against  the  Democrats  could  be  aroused  to  the 
highest  pitch.  After  thev  had  become  assured  that  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  had  become  determined  to  save  that  Federal 
college  from  the  attack  of  the  New  Hampshire  Democrats, 
Daniel  Webster  argued  the  case,  and  concluded  his  oration  by 
making  a  sentimental  appeal  which  went  straight  to  the  heart 
and  brain  of  Marshall.  Webster  worked  himself  up  to  the 
point  of  sobbing  and  shedding  tears  over  the  alleged  outrage 
which  the  Democrats  were  trying  to  perpetrate  on  poor  little 
Dartmouth  College. 

The  partisan  Judge,  hunting  for  an  excuse  to  make  an  out- 
rageous decision,  can  always  find  it.  There  is  no  country  under 
the  sun  that  is  suffering  so  greatly  today  from  Judge-made 
law  as  our  own.  Eagerly  and  carefully  going  over  the  briefs 
submitted  in  the  case,  Marshall's  mind  rejected  every thng  else 
and  hit  upon  the  point  in  which  Jeremiah  Mason  had  put  no 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  307 

confidence,  the  rejected  stone  was  put  in  the  corner.  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  decided  (and  the  other  Federals  on  the  Bench 
concurred)  that  the  charter  granted  by  the  State  was  a  con- 
tract, binding  both  parties  perpetually  and  unalterably. 

That  the  decision  is  absurd  on  the  face  of  it,  you  will  con- 
vince yourself  if  you  will  merely  consider  the  difference 
between  a  contract,  as  described  in  all  of  the  law  books,  and  a 
license,  granted  by  a  State  or  a  Municipality,  authorizing  an 
individual  or  corporation  to  do  something. 

One  may  take  out  a  license  to  run  a  barber  shop;  he  is  not 
obliged  to  run  it :  but  if  the  owner  of  the  shop  engages  a  man 
to  work  for  him  for  a  valuable  consideration,  there  you  have 
a  contract  binding  upon  both  of  the  parties. 

A  citizen  may  take  out  a  license  to  run  a  butcher  business; 
the  license  does  not  compel  him  to  run  it ;  but  should  this  man 
come  to  you  and  make  a  contract  for  beeves,  the  animals  being 
identified,  and  the  amount  of  price  and  the  time  of  payment 
agreed  upon,  there  is  a  contract  between  you  two,  and  either 
of  you  could  enforce  it. 

A  corporation  may  be  chartered  by  a  State,  or  by  a  muni- 
cipality, to  establish  a  manufacturing  plant,  or  to  build  and 
operate  a  railroad.  Neither  the  State  nor  a  City,  after  having 
granted  such  a  charter  could  compel  the  corporation  to  actually 
do  what  they  have  procured  a  license  to  do.  The  license  does 
not  compel  them  to  take  advantage  of  the  permission  granted. 
They  can  establish  the  manufacturing  plant  if  they  choose  to 
do  so.  They  can  construct  and  operate  the  Street  Railway  if 
they  see  fit,  but  they  cannot  be  compelled  to  do  so.  If  a 
license  were  a  contract,  of  course  they  could  be  made  to  do  it. 
Consequently,  when  Chief  Justice  John  Marshall  allowed  his 
intensely  partisan  mind  to  control  him  in  the  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege  case,  and  to  wring  from  him  a  decision  that  a  license  to 
do  something  is  the  same  as  a  contract  to  do  it,  he  committed 
an  awful  crime  against  our  people. 

A  corporation  born  into  the  world,  through  its  acceptance 
of  a  charter,  is  nothing  more  than  one  more  citizen.  It  is 
artificial,  in  that  it  was  created  by  law.  It  should  have  no 
greater  rights  than  are  acknowledged  by  those  citizens  who 
come  into  the  world  in  the  course  of  nature.  A  citizen  who  is 
created  by  law  should  be  subject  to  the  Legislature  and  Con- 
gress just  as  we  natural  born  citizens  are.  You  and  I  hare 
to  take  our  chances,  and  abide  by  such  changes  as  are  made 
in  our  condition  by  the  lawmakers  and  the  office  holders.  We 
are  deeply  affected  when  our  government  goes  to  war.  We  are 
more  or  less  affected  every  time  our  Legislature  holds  a  session. 
We  are  often  ruinously  affected  by  the  doings  of  our  National 
Congress.  We  are  not  guaranteed  against  an  increase  of  taxes ; 


308  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

we  are  not  insured  against  an  invasion  of  our  personal  liber- 
ties; we  are  not  safe-guarded  from  risks  and  changes  in  any 
manner  whatsoever. 

On  the  contrary,  the  artificial  citizen,  the  corporation,  claims 
that  his  license  to  do  business  is  a  contract  which  must  never 
be  interfered  with.  If  one  legislature  was  so  improvident  as  to 
exempt  it  from  taxes,  no  other  legislature  should  impose  taxes 
upon  it,  no  matter  how  things  had  changed  and  no  matter  how 
unjust  and  burdensome  to  the  other  tax-payers  might  be  the 
change. 

The  natural  consequence  is,  our  Republic  is  cursed  by  cor- 
porate greed  and  corporate  dishonesty,  and  because  of  the 
Dartmouth  decision,  we  are  helpless. 

A  half  dozen  fellows  determine  to  steal  from  the  public. 
They  incorporate  themselves  under  a  charter,  which  possibly 
they  have  bought  from  some  corrupt  legislature.  Either  in 
person  or  by  representatives,  these  chartered  plunderers  will 
control  the  legislature,  both  State  and  National.  All  along 
our  rivers,  they  are  grabbing  power  rights  which  should  never 
go  out  of  the  ownership  of  our  State.  For  miles  and  miles, 
they  are  condemning  private  property,  not  for  public  benefit, 
but  for  private  gain.  In  that  way,  the  men  who  organize 
under  charters  influence  the  legislation  which  enriches  them. 

A  fine  example  of  this  is  now  under  discussion  (August  16, 
1910)  in  all  the  newspapers.  Senator  Aldrich,  the  Guggen- 
heims,  the  Rockefeller  group,  the  Thomas  F.  Ryan  interests 
all  get  together,  under  charters  granted  under  the  New  Jersey 
law,  or  that  of  some  other  State,  and  so  prepare  to  control 
crude  and  manufactured  rubber.  To  enable  them  to  more 
effectively  do  this,  Senator  Aldrich,  using  his  official  power, 
raised  the  duty  on  manufactured  rubber  from  30  to  35  per 
cent,  crude  rubber  being  left  on  the  free  list.  The  Senator  and 
his  pals  control  crude  rubber.  They  have  a  clause  in  their 
charters  authorizing  them  to  manufacture ;  therefore,  they  can 
fix  the  price  of  the  raw  material,  which  the  manufacturer  must 
use ;  and  therefore  by  bringing  up  the  price  of  the  crude  rubber 
compel  the  manufacturer  to  advance  the  price  of  the  man- 
ufactured rubber.  Thus,  by  skillfully  fixing  the  laws,  Senator 
Aldrich,  and  his  pals,  forced  the  rubber  manufacturers  to  run 
up  their  prices,  and  to  turn  over  the  difference  between  the  old 
price  and  the  new  to  those  who  control  crude  rubber. 

To  state  it  in  another  way:  Aldrich  uses  his  position  as 
Senator  to  make  it  necessary  for  the  manufacturer  of  rubber 
to  demand  from  the  people  enormously  more  money  for  rub- 
ber goods :  which  money,  after  being  squeezed  out  of  the  poor, 
must  be  turned  over  to  Aldrich  and  his  associates.  The  result 
has  been  an  increase  in  the  price  of  every  rubber  article  from 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


309 


auto  tires  down  to  the  rubber  doll  and  baby  rattler.  This  25 
per  cent,  increase  in  price  has  not  enriched  the  rubber  man- 
ufacturer, for  the  simple  reason  that,  after  taking  this  25  per 
cent,  advance  from  the  helpless  public,  the  equally  helpless 
manufacturer  had  to  turn  it  over  to  Aldrich  and  his  gang. 

Could  not  the  legislature  of  Xew  Jersey  revoke  or  alter  that 
terrible  charter  under  which  Aldrich  and  his  band  are 
plundering  the  people  \  Could  not  all  of  these  cormorants,  who 
are  feeding  upon  the  body  politic,  be  made  to  turn  loose  \  No  ! 
the  everlasting  Dartmouth  College  case  starts  up.  gets  in  the 
way  of  precedent-bound  Judges,  and  the  old  fetters,  which 
were  forged  in  the  partisan  passion  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
are  riveted  upon  us  harder  than  ever.  I  hope  devoutly  that 
we  will  live  to  see  the  day  when  some  Judge  will  arise  in 
Israel  to  show  the  utter  fallacy  and  terrible  consequences  of 
the  Dartmouth  College  decision. 


Thos.  E.  Watson's  Tribute  to  the 
Late  Sam  Jones  on  His  Fif- 
tieth Birthday. 

(Reprinted  by  request,  having  appeared  in  the  Atlanta  Georgian  of 
October  26r  1906.) 

In  an  issue  of  the  Georgian,  the  editor  contributed  an  article 
of  appreciation  and  contrast  on  Sam  Jones  and  Tom  Watson. 
In  it  he  referred  to  a  beautiful  sketch  which  Mr.  Watson  wrote 
of  Sam  Jones  just  after  the  failure  of  the  former's  candidacy 
for  the  Vice-presidency  in  1896.  That  sketch  was  not  available 
when  Saturday's  editorial  was  written,  and  the  editor  expressed 
the  gratification  it  would  give  him  to  reproduce  it.  In  response 
to  that  suggestion  the  article  in  question  has  been  sent  him  by 
J.  L.  Baskin,  of  Temple,  Georgia,  just  as  it  appeared  in  the 
old  People's  Party  Paper,  published  in  Atlanta  in  1897.  The 
paper  is  dated  October  22,  1897,  and  is  already  yellow  with 

In  offering  it,  Mr.  Baskin  writes : 

Temple,  Ga.,  October  22,  1906. 
Colonel  John  T.  Graves,  Editor  the  Atlanta  Georgian. 

Dear  Sir: — I  see  in  the  Georgian  you  would  like  to  have  Tom 
Watson's  letter  to  Sam  Jones  on  his  fiftieth  birthday.  Here  it  is. 
I  have  kept  it  as  a  souvenir  of  rare  merit.  I  would  love  to  have  it 
reproduced. 

There  are,  or  have  been,  three  men  I  have  on  my  list — Sam  Jones, 
Tom  Watson  and  John  T.  Graves. 

Yours  in  great  esteem,  J.  L.  BASKIN. 

P.  S. — Excuse  pencil,  as  I  can't  write  with  pen.  I  am  nearly 
eighty  years  old.  J.  L.  B. 

The  article  follows  in  full : 

Last  week  Eev.  Sam  Jones  celebrated  his  50th  birthday. 

In  his  palatial  home  at  Cartersville,  every  dollar  of  whose 
value  was  coined  in  the  golden  mint  of  his  genius,  warm 
friends  gathered  about  him  to  give  evidence  of  their  love,  and 
to  speak  in  behalf  of  all  Georgians  the  words  of  praise  this 
greatest  of  Georgians  has  so  well  earned. 

For  twenty  years  Sam  Jones  has  been  the  wonder  of  con- 
gregations, the  despair  of  imitators,  the  puzzle  of  plodders, 
the  scandal  of  the  "unco  guid  and  rigidly  righteous."  the  way- 
ward son  of  the  big-wig  bishops,  the  delight  of  the  lecture 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  311 


hall,  and  the  Prince  Bountiful  of  the  people — giving  away  the 
thousands  so  easily  made  and  so  charitably  spent. 

In  the  good  year  1877,  when  both  of  us  were  not  so  old,  nor 
so  gray,  nor  so  wrinkled,  Sam  Jones  lit  down  in  this  veritable 
town  of  Thomson,  and  began  to  go  for  the  devil  and  his  angels 
in  a  manner  which  was  entirely  new  to  said  devil ;  also  new  to 
said  angels. 

We  remember  that  we  were  then  trying  to  begin  to  practise 
law.  We  walked  three  miles  every  morning  to  the  office,  toted 
a  tin  dinner  bucket,  like  any  school  boy,  took  the  mid-day  meal 
alone,  undisturbed  by  the  rush  of  clients  (who  were  painfully 
slow  about  rushing)  and  looked  out  upon  the  great  world  in 
doubt  as  to  our  future  lot  therein. 

Some  one  happened  to  remark  in  our  hearing  that  there  was 
a  little  preacher  up  at  the  Methodist  Church  who  was  knocking 
the  crockery  around  in  lively  style,  and  who  was  dusting  the 
jackets  of  the  amen  corner  brethren  in  a  way  which  brought 
the  double  grunts  out  of  those  fuzzy  fossils. 

Pacific  men  love  combative  men,  hence  we  at  once  strolled 
up  to  see  what  was  going  on. 

As  a  rule  we  are  not  ravenously  fond  of  sermons.  We  make 
the  confession  with  shame  and  humiliation.  When  we  have 
heard  the  same  commonplaces,  droned  out  in  the  same  life) ess 
manner,  about  200,000  times,  we  require  all  of  our  native 
politeness  to  keep  down  yawns,  nods  and  other  signs  of  fatigue 
and  extreme  lassitude.  We  did  not  yawn  the  day  we  went  to 
hear  Sam  Jones. 

There  he  was,  clad  in  a  little  black  jump-tail  coat,  and  look- 
ing as  much  like  the  regulation  preacher  as  we  look  like  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

He  was  not  in  the  pulpit.  He  was  right  next  to  his  crowd, 
standing  within  the  railing,  and  almost  in  touch  of  the  victims. 

His  head  was  down,  as  if  he  was  holding  on  to  his  chain  of 
thought  by  the  teeth,  but  his  right  hand  was  going  energeti- 
cally up  and  down,  with  all  the  grace  of  a  pump  handle. 

And,  Lord,  how  he  did  hammer  the  brethren.  How  he  did 
peel  the  amen  corner.  How  he  did  smash  their  solemn  self- 
conceit,  their  profound  self-satisfaction,  their  peaceful  copart- 
nership wth  the  Almighty,  their  placid  conviction  that  they 
were  the  trustees  of  the  New  Jerusalem! 

We  sinners  looked  on,  listened,  grinned.  It  was  all  we  could 
do  to  keep  from  saying.  "Sick  'em.  Sam !" 

We  knew  some  of  those  men.  We  sinners  knew  their  fail- 
ings. We  wondered  where  Jones  had  learned  it  all.  We 
rejoiced  exceedingly,  and  the  amen  corner  brethren  sweated  in 
their  great  agony. 

After  awhile,  with  solemn,  irresistible  force,  Jones  called 


312  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

on  these  brethren  to  rise  in  public,  confess  their  short-comings, 
and  kneel  for  Divine  Grace. 

And  they  knelt.  With  groans,  and  sobs,  and  tears,  these  old 
bell-wethers  of  the  flock  fell  on  their  knees,  and  cried  aloud  in 
their  distress. 

And  the  little  man  in  the  short-tail  coat  was  master  of  the 
situation. 
Then  what? 

He  turned  his  guns  upon  us  sinners,  and  he  enfiladed  us. 
He  raked  us  fore  and  aft.  He  gave  us  grape  and  canister  and 
all  the  rest.  He  abused  us  and  ridiculed  us ;  he  stormed  at  us 
and  laughed  at  us ;  he  called  us  flop-earned  hounds,  beer  kegs, 
and  whiskey  soaks.  He  plainly  said  that  we  were  all  hypo- 
crites and  liars,  and  he  intimated,  somewhat  broadly,  that  most 
of  us  would  steal. 

Oh,  we  had  a  time  of  it,  I  assure  you.  For  six  weeks  the 
farms  and  the  stores  were  neglected  and  Jones,  Jones,  JONES, 
was  the  whole  thing. 

And  the  pleasantest  feature  of  the  entire  display  of  human 
nature  was  the  marked  manner  in  which  the  amen  corner 
brethren  enjoyed  Sam's  flaying  of  us  sinners. 

Before  the  thing  was  over  those  holy  men  had  almost 
recovered  their  boisterous  humility,  which  being  interpreted 
means  self-righteousness  turned  wrong  side  outwards. 

And  nobody  knows  this  better  than  Sam  Jones. 

Well,  the  meeting  wound  up,  the  community  settled  back 
into  its  old  ways — but  it  has  never  been  exactly  the  same  com- 
munity since. 

Gambling  disappeared,  loud  profanity  on  the  streets  was 
heard  no  more,  and  the  bar  rooms  were  run  out  of  the  county. 

Seeing  the  manifestations  of  power  which  Mr.  Jones  made 
day  after  day  in  these  meetings,  we  have  never  felt  the 
slightest  surprise  at  his  growth  as  an  evangelist.  We  felt  then, 
and  expressed  the  feeling,  that  here  was  one  of  the  men  of 
original  genius  whom  God  gives  to  mankind  at  very  rare 
intervals. 

What  is  the  secret  of  his  power  ?  No  one  can  tell,  least  of  all, 
himself. 

Who  can  tell  the  secret  of  the  laws  by  which  one  throat  has 
the  hoarse  caw  of  a  crow,  and  another  the  gurgling  sweetness 
of  Jenny  Lind?  Who  can  tell  why  one  boy  can  declaim  Pat- 
rick Henry  and  put  the  audience  to  sleep,  while  another  boy 
will  declaim  the  same  speech  and  break  up  the  same  audience 
into  storms  of  applause? 

Nay,  who  can  tell  why  the  same  musician  or  orator,  or 
painter  thrills  with  the  current  inspiration  at  one  moment,  and 
at  the  next  it  is  all  gonp  ^ 


I 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  313 

Men  of  talent  have  their  rules,  their  little  adages,  their 
prim,  precise  regulations.  Give  them  certain  materials  and 
certain  conditions,  and  they  are  warranted  to  turn  you  out  a 
certain  amount  of  work.  They  are  valuable  men — perhaps 
the  most  valuable,  for  everyday  purposes.  We  need  them; 
can't  get  along  without  them.  They  build  good  bridges,  make 
good  roads,  open  the  mines,  run  the  factories,  operate  the  rail- 
roads, cut  our  coats,  make  dresses  for  our  wives,  sit  in  our 
courts,  draw  salaries  in  our  offices,  usefully  act  as  governors, 
colonels  and  presidents. 

But.  oh.  the  men  of  genius !  What  would  the  world  be 
without  them? 

They  carry  the  fleeting  glories  of  nature  into  the  imperisha- 
ble custody  of  the  canvas;  they  catch  the  passing  dream  of 
beauty  and  chain  it  forever  in  the  marble  hands  of  the  statue. 
They  sing  to  us.  and  the  world  listens,  delighted,  melted, 
inspired.  Thev  play  for  us  and  the  light  of  their  thoughts 
illuminates  the  way  for  all  men  down  the  corridors  of  Time, 
till  Time  shall  be  no  more.  The  man  of  talent  we  must  have, 
for  life  has  its  routine,  its  drudgery — its  drays  to  draw,  its 
wood  to  hew,  its  wheels  to  turn,  its  prosaic  commonplaces 
which  must  be  regarded.  But  what  would  life  be  without  its 
bugle  calls  to  higher  and  better  things,  the  sun-bursts  of 
inspiration  which  reveal  to  our  delighted  vision  the  high 
table-lands  of  human  nobility  and  human  happiness;  the 
divine  unwritten  noiseless  music  within  our  innermost  natures 
which  only  the  man  of  genius  can  awaken  ? 

If  we  were  asked  to  analyze  the  power  of  Sam  Jones  we 
would  say  that  the  chief  elements  are  clear  mental  vision, 
fearless  soul,  kind  heart,  and  unbridled,  irreverent,  witty 
tongue.  His  good  eyes  enable  him  to  see  the  world  just  as  it 
is — its  sad  things,  its  funny  things,  its  sham  things,  its  brutal 
things,  its  terrible  things,  its  beautiful  things. 

His  fearless  soul  leads  him  to  describe  what  he  sees,  and 
the  immense  force  of  Truth  and  Realism  becomes  his  ally. 
His  kind  heart  enables  him  to  denounce,  yet  not  drive  away, 
to  chastise,  yet  love,  to  punish,  yet  win  the  culprit. 

His  want  of  reverence  for  other  men,  their  ways  of  speech 
and  of  life,  unchains  him  from  the  shackles  of  cant,  custom,, 
routine,  and  conventionality.  It  frees  him  from  imitation. 
He  thus  gets  room  for  his  own  individuality  to  grow,  his  own 
fountain  to  play. 

Being  freed  entirely  from  the  chains  which  enslave  so  many 
thousands  of  public  men.  his  genius  shines  like  a  star — 
inexhaustible,  radiant. 

Put  Talmage  in  one  pulpit  and  Jones  in  another  to  deliver 
one  sermon  in  the  same  city,  at  the  same  time,  and  Talmage 


314  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


might  equal  Jones  in  that  one  sermon,  and  might  get  half  the 
crowd,  for  that  one  time. 

But  let  them  start  in  to  preach  a  series  of  thirty  or  sixty 
sermons  in  the  same  city  at  the  same  time,  and  before  a  week 
could  elapse  Talmage  would  have  nobody  in  his  church  but  the 
salaried  choir,  the  deaf  man  in  the  amen  corner,  and  the 
janitor.  Jones  would  capture  the  whole  business.  His  sermons 
would  grow  better  day  by  day,  as  his  genius  expanded,  his 
thoughts  intensified,  and  his  heart  warmed  to  the  work. 

You  could  no  more  exhaust  Jones  than  you  could  exhaust 
a  star;  while  Talmage,  like  all  speakers  of  mere  talent,  is 
filled  for  the  occasion,  like  a  lamp;  and  when  that  particular 
supply  of  oil  is  burned  out,  you  must  wait  for  light  till  the 
poor  thing  can  be  filled  again. 

Here's  to  you,  Sam  Jones ! 

Some  day  we  shall  meet  beyond  the  evening  and  the  sun-set, 
and  the  Creator  of  us  both  know  that  not  one  only  of  us  tried 
to  lift  humanity  and  to  make  it  better,  wiser,  happier. 

And  because  one,  only,  succeeded  there  is  no  good  reason 
why  the  failure  should  not  be  generous  and  send  greeting  to 
the  success. 

May  twenty  other  years  come  and  go,  finding  you  constant 
in  strength,  constant  in  good  works,  constant  in  benign 
ifluence  over  the  erring  of  a  fallen  world. 


Our  American  Judicial  Oligarchy 

Nothing  comparable  to  our  Federal  Judicial  system  has 
ever  been  known  in  the  history  of  governments. 

The  men  who  framed  our  Constitution,  in  1767.  were  of  the 
English  race,  and  they  are  presumed  to  have  been  imbued  with 
the  English  idea  of  jurisprudence  and  judicial  establishments. 
They  are  supposed  to  have  had  in  their  minds  the  English 
model  when  they  established  our  own  courts. 

Xo  one  can  understand  how  preposterous  has  been  the 
arrogance  of  our  Federal  judges  unless  he  studies  the  historic 
origin  and  the  true  meaning  of  legislative  terms. 

In  England,  a  law  once  made  by  the  joint  Act  of  Parliament 
and  the  King,  is  supreme.  Judges  must  obey  it.  just  as  other 
officials  of  the  empire  must  do.  Such  a  thing  as  one  of  the 
English  courts  deliberately  setting  aside  an  Act  of  Parliament 
is  unknown.  Consequently,  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  our 
forefathers  intended  to  give  to  the  Judicial  branch  of  the 
Government  of  this  country  a  power  which  it  never  had  had 
in  England,  which  it  does  not  possess  there  now.  and  which  is 
not  conceded  to  it.  or  claimed  by  it.  in  any  other  nation  on 
earth.  There  isn't  a  line  or  a  word  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  which  can  be  tortured  into  meaning  that  the 
Federal  courts,  high  or  low.  have  authority  to  set  aside  Acts 
of  Congress.  Yet.  when  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  an  intense 
partisan  of  the  Hamiltonian  school,  went  upon  the  Supreme 
bench,  he  carried  there  a  determined  purpose  to  exert  to  the 
utmost  his  powerful  intellect  and  his  lofty  position  to  make 
the  Supreme  Court  the  final  arbiter  in  all  matters  of  legisla- 
tion. 

Hating  Jefferson  with  great  bitterness,  he  appeared  to  con- 
sider it  a  religious  duty  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Federal  courts  in  every  possible  direction,  so  as  to  make  the 
life-tenure  Judges,  appointed  by  an  indirectly  elected  Presi- 
dent, the  real  ruler  of  our  Republic,  thus  making  it  reasonably 
certain  that  class-interest  would  become  dominant,  and  the 
democracy  would  be  subservient. 

The  thirteen  original  States,  forming  the  old  Confedera- 
tion, had  been  separate,  sovereign  communities.  As  such,  they 
had  fought  for  independence.  As  such,  they  had  been 
acknowledged  to  be  independent.  As  such,  they  met  in  con- 
vention, through  their  representatives,  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union. 

A  very  delicate  question  arose  as  to  how  far  these  thirteen 


316  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

sovereign  States,  jealous  of  their  State  sovereignty,  should 
concede  to  the  Federal  Government  the  authority  to  annul 
State  laws,  upon  the  ground  that  they  conflicted  with  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  The  necessity  for  such  a  conces- 
sion to  the  general  Government  was  obvious,  but  the  delegates 
were  so  determined  to  preserve  the  dignity  and  the  rights  of 
the  States  that  they  very  carefully  guarded  the  concession 
which  they  proposed  should  be  made  to  the  central  Govern- 
ment. 

When  Oliver  Ellsworth,  of  Massachusetts,  came  to  frame 
the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789,  which  carried  into  effect  the  clauses 
of  the  Constitution  relating  to  the  Judiciary,  he  provided  the 
method  by  which  the  constitutionality  of  State  laws  should  be 
tested.  The  Judicial  Act  itself,  from  which  our  Federal  courts 
derive  their  origin,  prescribed  the  form  of  procedure  which 
must  be  followed  when  a  State  law  is  attacked  upon  the  ground 
that  it  conflicts  with  the  Federal  Constitution.  The  question 
must  be  raised  in  the  State  courts  and  carried  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State,  from  which  the  appeal  lies  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States;  thus  dignity  and  uniformity  are 
preserved. 

In  the  Federal  courts,  as  now  conducted,  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing monstrous  inconsistency:  the  Judges  say,  with  one 
accord,  that  the  Federal  courts  are  controlled  by  the  construc- 
tion which  is  placed  upon  the  State  law  by  the  State  courts, 
and  yet  these  same  Judges  claim  the  right  to  annul  the  law. 
This  is  absurd  on  the  face  of  it.  The  inconsistency  is  to  be 
explained  in  only  one  way.  The  rule  which  requires  the 
Federal  courts  to  be  bound  by  the  construction  placed  upon  a 
State  law  by  the  State  courts,  arose  during  the  early  period 
of  our  Government,  when  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789  was  still 
respected.  Federal  Judges  of  lower  courts  not  only  accepted 
the  construction  which  State  Courts  placed  upon  State 
laws,  but  accepted  the  laws  themselves,  until  they  had  been 
declared  unconstitutional  by  the  State  courts,  or  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Never,  until  the  Civil  War  had  ended  and  the  Federal 
courts  began  to  be  filled  up  with  corporation  lawyers,  did  the 
lower  Federal  courts  arrogate  to  themselves  jurisdiction  over 
State  laws  which  had  never  been  assailed  in  the  State  courts. 

Not  only  does  this  usurpation  of  power  by  the  lower  Federal 
courts  impair  the  dignity  of  the  State  and  frequently  paralyze 
the  State  in  the  conduct  of  its  domestic  concerns,  but  the 
inevitable  result  is  the  conflict  of  decisions  throughout  the 
Union, — one  District  Court  deciding  a  question  one  way,  and 
another  District  Court  deciding  the  same  question  another 
way, — an  example  of  which  was  furnished  by  the  conflicting 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  317 

decisions  of  the  lower  Federal  courts  upon  the  Federal 
Employees'  Liability  Act. 

An  adage  as  old  as  government  itself  declares  that,  the  King 
shall  not  be  used  by  the  subject  without  his  own  consent.  The 
States  being  sovereign, — except  to  the  extent  that  they  have 
delegated  certain  powers  to  the  Federal  Government,— 
naturally  assumed  that  they  would  be  protected  from  the  suits 
of  private  citizens  by  virtue  of  the  time-honored  principle 
cited. 

In  the  old  Confederation,  no  person,  natural  or  artificial, 
could  have  entered  suit  against  one  of  the  sovereign  States. 
After  the  Union  was  formed,  one  Chisholm,  being  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  but  not  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  entered 
suit  against  the  State.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  held  that  the 
State  was  sueable  by  the  private  citizen  of  another  State. 
This  position  outraged  every  member  of  the  LTnion  to  such  an 
extent  that  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  was  at  once 
proposed  and  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  future 
infractions  of  State  rights.  This  is  the  Eleventh  Amendment. 
During  recent  years,  however,  the  Federal  Judges,  high  and 
low,  have  nullified  the  Eleventh  Amendment,  and  have  con- 
stantly taken  jurisdiction  in  suits  brought  by  private  persons 
and  corporations  against  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Union. 
Governors,  Attorney  General,  Sheriffs,  and  other  officials  of  the 
State,  are  sued,  enjoined  in  their  official  capacities,  and  thus 
the  entire  State  administration  is  brought  to  a  stand-still,  and 
then  dragged  into  court,  like  an  ordinary  defendant,  to  appear 
and  plead  in  answer  to  the  suit  of  a  non-resident  corporation 
or  private  individual.  The  Federal  courts  solemnly  declare 
that  a  suit  which  enjoins  the  State  Government  and  prevents 
the  State  officials  from  acting  in  their  official  capacities  is  not 
a  suit  against  the  State. 

The  historic  origin  of  the  legal  adage  that  no  citizen  shall 
be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process 
of  law,  must  be  understood  before  one  can  fully  appreciate  the 
startling  evolution  of  that  principle  which  has  occurred  during 
recent  years. 

When  William  the  Norman  invaded  and  conquered  Eng- 
land, he  set  up  a  government  of  unlimited  royal  prerogative. 
As  against  their  Norman  masters,  Englishmen  had  almost  no 
rights.  In  the  History  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Hallam  says  that 
in  twenty  years  after  the  accession  of  William  the  Conquerer, 
almost  the  whole  soil  of  England  had  been  taken  from  the 
English  and  divided  among  the  foreigners.  The  Saxon 
chronicle  states:  "God  sees  the  wretched  people  most  unjustly 
oppressed;  first  they  are  despoiled  of  their  possessions,  then 
butchered." 


318  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


Aubrey,  in  his  "Rise  and  Growth  of  the  English  People," 
gives  an  appalling  description  of  the  condition  of  the  common 
people  subject  to  the  merciless  despotism  of  the  feudal  lords. 
Arbitrary  seizures  of  property;  arbitrary  fees  and  fines;  arbi- 
trary imprisonment  in  dungeons,  where  the  victim  was  left  to 
perish  of  hunger ;  arbitrary  executions,  where  the  lord  gibbeted 
the  vassal  on  private  gallows, — made  the  Norman  regime  one 
of  lawlessness  and  unrestricted  oppression  of  the  weak  by  the 
strong. 

Students  of  history  are  familiar  with  the  dissensions  which 
broke  out  among  the  conquerors,  and  with  that  slow  but  steady 
process  by  which  the  common  people  won  back  their  feudal 
rights. 

In  the  Great  Charter,  wrung  by  the  barons  from  King  John, 
is  the  familiar  phrase:  "'No  free  man  shall  be  taken  or 
imprisoned  or  dis-seized,  unless  by  the  lawful  judgment  of  his 
peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land." 

This  meant  that  absolute  monarchy  had  been  brought  to  an 
end,  and  a  limited  monarchy  substituted,  in  which  the  royal 
prerogative  was  to  give  way  to  a  government  of  constitutional 
limitations. 

When  the  Great  Charter  declares  that  no  free  man  shall  be 
thrown  into  prison  without  due  process  of  law,  nothing  more 
is  meant  than  is  said.  The  evil  was  the  arbitrary  seizure  of 
the  weak  man  by  the  strong,  and  the  imprisonment  and  per- 
haps execution  of  the  victim  who  had  been  arbitrarily 
arrested. 

When  the  Great  Charter  declares  that  no  free  man  shall  be 
dis-seized  unless  by  due  process  of  law,  nothing  more  is  meant 
than  that  his  cattle  or  his  land  shall  not  be  taken  away  from 
him  arbitrarily  by  the  exercise  of  brute  force. 

Here  we  have  the  historic  origin.  It  all  seems  plain  and 
simple  enough,  and  yet,  with  endless  ingenuity  and  audacity, 
the  attorneys  of  corporations  have  construed  this  legal  precept 
to  mean  that  money  invested  in  corporate  enterprise  has  an 
inviolable  right  to  earn  net  profits.  The  Federal  Judges  have 
actually  sustained  this  absurd  doctrine,  and  so  thoroughly  well 
have  the  corporation  lawyers  done  their  work  that  most  of  the 
attorneys  who  represent  the  States  in  cases  of  this  sort,  con- 
cede that  unless  the  corporation  is  allowed  to  earn  net  profits, 
the  property  of  the  corporation  is  confiscated  within  the 
meaning  of  that  constitutional  clause  which  comes  from  Magna 
Chart  a.  ' 

Gf  course,  it  must  be  clear  to  anyone  who  will  study  the 
question  impartially,  that  the  law  never  did  intend  to  guaran- 
tee anybody  the  making  of  net  profits.  With  the  earning  of 
dividends,  the  law  has  nothing  to  do.    The  plain  meaning  of 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  319 

the  constitutional  provision  which  has  come  down  to  us  from 
Magna  Charta  is  that  a  corporation  stands  upon  exactly  the 
same  footing  as  a  natural  person,  in  that  it  shall  not  be 
deprived  of  its  title  to  its  property  and  the  property  itself 
without  due  process  of  law.  In  the  case  of  a  railroad,  it  shall 
not  be  deprived  of  its  roadbed,  its  depots,  its  locomotives,  its 
box  cars,  its  passenger  coaches,  etc.,  etc.,  without  legal  process 
first  being  had  against  the  company.  If  the  State  should  pass 
a  law  which  would  make  it  impossible  for  the  corporation  to 
earn  reasonable  profits  upon  the  money  invested,  such  a  law 
would  be  unjust,  and  it  ought  to  be  repealed;  but  how  can  it 
be  said  that  such  a  law  confiscates  the  roadbed,  the  rolling 
stock,  and  the  various  other  property  of  the  corporation? 

In  New  York,  it  was  held,  in  a  certain  case,  that  unless  a 
corporation  were  allowed  to  earn  6  per  cent,  net  profits,  the 
law  which  lowered  the  earnings  below  that  standard  was  con- 
fiscatory, and,  therefore,  void.  Confiscatory  of  what?  Can  it 
be  claimed  that  such  a  law  confiscated  the  title  and  took  away 
the  property  of  the  corporation?  To  support  the  contention 
of  such  Judges,  we  must  construe  Magna  Charta,  and  the  Con- 
stitution which  contains  the  old  clause  derived  from  that 
instrument,  to  mean  that  King  John  and  his  barons  meant  to 
guarantee  net  profits  to  propertyholders.  Could  anything  be 
more  absurd?  When  a  railroad  or  other  corporation  sets  up 
a  plea  of  that  sort,  it  takes  this  position :  "We  demand  that  the 
money  invested  in  corporations  be  given  special  privileges  not 
enjoyed  by  money  invested  in  private  estates  or  in  non-cor- 
porate business.  We  demand  the  right  to  manage  our  cor- 
poration affairs  to  suit  ourselves,  to  pay  as  much  in  salaries  as 
we  think  fit,  to  pour  as  much  water  into  the  stock  as  we  think 
fit,  to  squander  as  much  on  lobbyists,  press  agents,  and  special 
counsel  as  we  think  proper ;  to  grant  whatever  rebates  we  may 
think  expedient  and  to  make  such  traffic  arrangements  with 
the  Express  companies  as  allow  those  horse-leeches  to  absorb 
the  cream  of  our  business, — and  yet  to  earn  net  profits  of  6 
per  cent.,  else  we  will  block  the  wheels  of  State  government, 
tie  the  hands  of  State  officers,  and  ignore  the  laws  enacted  by 
State  legislatures." 

A  striking  proof  of  the  incapacity  of  any  Judge  to  pass 
upon  one  of  these  confiscatory  pleas,  and  to  say  what  will  be 
the  effect  of  any  given  statute  imposing  taxes  or  reducing 
rates,  was  furnished  in  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  and,  there- 
fore, null  and  void.  Within  twelve  months  thereafter,  this 
corporation  declared  an  enormous  dividend  upon  watered 
stock,  as  well  as  actual  investment. 

Another  case  was  furnished  in  the  80-cent  gas  fight  in  New 
York.    It  was  held  that  the  property  of  the  Gas  Trust  would 


320 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


be  confiscated  if  the}^  were  compelled  to  furnish  New  York 
with  80-cent  gas.  It  afterwards  transpired  that  the  Gas  Trust 
had  '"cooked  up"  a  statement  to  suit  itself,  to  impose  on  the 
Judge  (as  was  inevitable),  and  that  the  real  books  of  accounts 
were  never  produced  at  all.  These  would  have  shown  that  the 
corporation  could  have  made  a  splendid  profit  on  65— cent  gas. 

The  point  I  make,  however,  is  that  the  old  adage  which  we 
derived  from  Magna  Chart  a,  and  which,  of  course,  is  very 
much  older  than  that  instrument,  has  been  outrageously  per- 
verted when  it  is  used  by  the  courts  to  guarantee  to  corporate 
investments  net  profits,  no  matter  how  bad  may  be  the  man- 
agement of  such  corporations,  no  matter  how  much  fictitious 
capitalization  may  be  covered  up  in  their  securities,  no  matter 
how  much  of  the  yearly  revenue  may  be  squandered  corruptly, 
no  matter  how  the  business  of  the  corporation  may  be  affected 
by  prevailing  conditions  from  which  all  business  suffers,  and 
no  matter  how  great  may  be  the  necessities  of  the  State  which 
seeks  to  derive  some  support  from  those  corporations  which  the 
State  has  itself  brought  into  life  by  its  grant  of  charters. 

According  to  the  decisions,  a  corporation  earning  6  per  cent, 
is  in  full  enjoyment  of  its  title  and  in  full  possession  of  its 
property ;  but  if  the  State  enacts  legislation  which  reduces  the 
profits  to  5  99-100  per  cent.,  the  corporation's  title  and  property 
have  been  confiscated ! 

How  can  anything  be  more  absurd? 

The  corporation  may  be  earning  3  per  cent.,  4  per  cent.,  5 
per  cent.,  or  5  3-4  per  cent., — but  because  the  law  does  not 
allow  it  to  earn  6  per  cent.,  it  has  lost  its  property  by  con- 
fiscation. 

If  the  Runnymede  barons  meant  anything  like  that  it  is  no 
wonder  King  John  felt  inclined  to  fight,  and  only  gave  up 
when  he  had  to. 


Answer  to  Booker  Washington 

The  Negro  Race  Compared  to  the  Latins 

With  statistics  one  can  prove  many  things — the  conclusion 
arrived  at  depending,  in  all  eases,  considerably  upon  the  man 
behind  the  figures. 

This  time  the  man  behind  the  figures  is  Doctor  Booker 
Washington — may  his  shadow  never  grow  less ! 

In  the  course  of  a  recent  lecture,  the  learned  Doctor  laid 
down  the  proposition  that  the  black  man  is  superior  to  the 
white,  and  he  proved  it — proved  it  by  statistics. 

He  said  that  there  is  85  per  cent,  of  illiteracy  among  the 
Spaniards,  while  there  is  only  54  per  cent,  of  illiteracy  among 
the  negroes:  therefore  the  negroes  are  clearly  more  advanced 
in  civilization  than  the  Spaniards. 

Poor  old  Spain ! 

The  learned  Doctor  further  demonstrated  that  there  is  65 
per  cent,  of  illiteracy  among  the  Italians :  therefore  the  negroes 
are  far  ahead  of  Italy.  Russian  illiteracy  being  TO  per  cent, 
the  black  man  takes  precedence  of  the  land  of  Peter  the  Great, 
Skobeleif.  Gorky,  Turgenef  and  Tolstoy.  South  America 
having  an  illiteracy  of  80  per  cent.,  falls  far  to  the  rear  of  the 
negro — and  Castro  must  add  this  additional  kick  to  the  many 
he  has  already  received  from  Xorth  America. 

Proud  of  his  statistics.  Doctor  Booker  Washington  exclaims : 
''"The  negro  race  has  developed  more  rapidly  in  the  thirty  years 
of  its  freedom  than  the  Latin  race  has  in  one  thousand  years  of 
freedom." 

That's  a  bold  statement.  Doctor. 

To  say  nothing  of  its  accuracy,  may  it  not  have  been  an 
unwise  thing  for  you  to  claim  that  the  black  man  has  risen 
during  thirty  years  more  rapidly  in  the  scale  of  civilization 
than  the  whites  have  risen  in  a  thousand? 

True,  you  confine  yourself  to  the  Italians,  the  Spaniards, 
the  Russians  and  the  South  Americans,  but  when  you  say  the 
darkest  of  all  the  colored  races  is  superior  to  that  great  section 
of  the  white  race  named  by  you.  does  it  not  occur  to  you  that 
you  may  create  a  feeling  of  resentment  among  all  the  whites? 

You  have  thousands  of  true  friends  throughout  the  entire 
country — white  men  who  have  most  generously  helped  you  in 
your  work,  helped  you  with  money,  with  moral  support  and 
with  a  certain  amount  of  social  recognition.  Your  admirers 
refer  to  you  as  a  great  man.    They  allude  to  your  work  as  a 


322  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

great  work.  The  South  helps  you  with  appropriations,  just  as 
the  North  helps  you  with  donations.  We  want  to  see  you  suc- 
ceed in  building  up  your  race. 

But  have  you  a  single  white  friend  who  will  endorse  your 
statement  that  the  black  race  is  so  superior  to  the  whites  that 
it  can  do  in  one  generation  what  it  required  the  whites  a 
thousand  years  to  do  ? 

'  Do  you  imagine  that  your  friends,  President  Eoosevelt,  Mr. 
Carnegie,  Dr.  Hart,  Bishop  Potter,  and  others,  will  like  you 
better  when  they  hear  you  putting  forth  a  claim  to  race  superi- 
ority ?    Doctor,  you  have  over-shot  the  mark. 

Whenever  the  North  wakes  tip  to  the  fact  that  you  are  teach- 
ing the  blacks  that  they  are  superior  to  the  whites,  you  are 
going  to  feel  the  east  wind. 

What  do  you  mean  by  racial  development,  Doctor? 

Apparently  your  standard  of  measurement  is  illiteracy. 
That  is  to  say,  if  a  greater  number  of  negroes  than  of  Spaniards 
can  read,  then  the  negro  has  achieved  a  higher  plane  in  civili- 
zation. 

Is  that  your  idea  ?  Does  the  ability  to  read  constitute  race 
development  ? 

According  to  that,  a  million  negro  children  attend  school 
twelve  months  and  become  "civilized"  because  they  have  learned 
to  spell  the  way  to  "baker"  the  first  two-syllable  word  in  the 
old  Webster's  Spelling  book,  and  read  "Mary  had  a  little 
lamb." 

Does  it  not  strike  you,  Doctor,  that  such  a  measure  might  be 
delusive? 

In  making  up  your  tables  of  illiteracy,  why  didn't  you 
include  all  the  negroes,  as  you  included  all  the  Italians,  all  the 
Spaniards,  all  the  Russians  ? 

Why  leave  out  your  home  folks  in  Africa,  Doctor? 

Why  omit  Santo  Domingo  and  Haiti  ? 

If  you  will  number  all  the  negroes,  Doctor,  your  percentage 
of  illiteracy  among  the  blacks  may  run  up  among  the  nineties, 
and  knock  your  calculation  into  a  cocked  hat. 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

In  the  West  Indies  God  poured  His  blessings  with  lavish 
hand  upon  the  island  of  Haiti.  The  French  went  there  and 
built  up  a  civilization.  The  Revolution  of  1789  freed  the 
negroes  who  were  held  in  slavery  by  the  whites,  and  civil  war 
soon  followed. 

The  blacks  outnumbered  the  whites  and  the  climate  was  their 
ally.  Yellow  fever  did  for  them  what  frost  did  for  the  Rus- 
sians when  Napoleon  struck  at  their  Czar.  They  achieved 
freedom,  and  they  have  had  it,  not  for  thirty  years,  but  for  a 
hundred  years. 


Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc.  323 


What  have  you?"  people  done  with  their  freedom  in  Santo 
Domingo,  Doctor?  Back,  back  into  barbarism,  voodooism, 
human  sacrifice,  social  and  political  anarchy  they  have 
plunged ;  and  their  history  is  one  long  blood-stained  record  of 
backsliding  from  the  standard  which  the  French  had  already 
established.  Even  now  your  black  brethren  in  Santo  Domingo 
are  beseeching  the  white  man  of  the  United  States  to  do  that 
which  they  are  unable  to  do — administer  national  affairs.  In 
self-defense  this  Government  ma}^  have  to  treat  Santo  Domingo 
as  Great  Britain  treats  Jamaica,  both  governments  acting  upon 
the  demonstrated  fact  that  the  blacks,  left  to  themselves,  are 
incapable  of  self-government  and  race  development. 

-  *  % 

But  before  entering  into  a  comparison  of  racial  progress, 
Doctor,  it  is  in  order  to  note  the  fact  that  you  accredit  the 
negro  with  only  thirty  years  of  freedom.  Why,  Doctor,  the 
negro  race,  as  a  race,  has  enjoyed  just  as  long  a  period  of  free- 
dom as  the  Celt:\  the  Lathis,  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the  Slavs. 

The  black  race  in  Africa  was  as  free  as  the  Indian  race  in 
North  America. 

During  the  thousand  years  in  which  the  whites  were  pain- 
fully creating  the  civilization  which  you  now  enjoy,  your  race, 
in  its  native  home,  was  doing  pretty  much  the  same  things 
which  the  red  race  was  doing  in  North  America.  Your  people 
were  running  about  in  the  woods,  naked,  eating  raw  meat, 
eternally  at  war — tribe  with  tribe — steeped  in  ignorance,  vice 
and  superstition,  with  an  occasional  lapse  into  human  sacrifice 
and  cannibalism. 

Your  race,  as  a  race,  is  free  now  in  Africa,  as  it  has  been  since 
the  daivn  of  history — where  is  the  civilization  which  it  worked 
out  for  itself?  It  does  not  exist ;  it  never  did  exist. 

The  negro  has  been  absolutely  unable  to  develop  as  a  race 
when  left  to  himself.  Nowhere,  at  any  time,  has  he  developed 
a  system  of  agriculture,  or  commerce,  or  manufactures,  made 
headway  in  mining  or  engineering,  or  conceived  a  system  of 
finance.  Never  has  he  produced  a  system  of  laws,  institutions 
of  state,  religious  organization,  or  worked  out  a  political  ideal. 
Never  has  he  created  a  literature,  or  developed  original  capacity 
for  the  fine  arts.  His  foot  has  never  even  crossed  the  threshold 
of  the  world  of  creative  painting,  sculpture,  music,  architect- 
ure. Into  the  realms  of  science,  in  the  domain  of  original 
thought,  in  the  higher  reaches  of  mental  power  where  the 
human  mind  grapples  with  vast  problems,  material  and 
spiritual,  the  problems  of  time  and  eternity,  the  negro  has 
never  entered.  No  word  has  ever  fallen  from  his  lips  that  was 
not  the  echo  of  what  some  white  man  had  already  said.  He 

12  Sketches 


324  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


has  sometimes  put  his  foot  in  the  white  rami's  track,  but  that 
is  the  best  he  has  ever  done. 

****** 

Compare  this  imitative  race  with  the  great  Latin  stock — a 
stock  from  which  sprang  Rienzi  and  Garibaldi,  Cavour  and 
Napoleon,  Da  Vinci  and  Galileo,  Savaronola  and  Leo  the 
Tenth,  Titian  and  Bellini,  Raphael  and  Michael  Angelo. 

The  Latin  race,  whether  in  Spain,.  Italy  or  South  America, 
has  developed  systems  of  agriculture,  finance,  commerce, 
manufactures,  education,  religion,  government — has  created 
literature,  laws  and  institutions  of  state,  has  evidenced  capacity 
in  science  and  art. 

*  *  *  sfc  *  * 

The  negroes  superior  to  the  Latins? 
Heavens  above ! 

During  the  thousand  years  which  Doctor  Washington  says 
the  Latins  have  done  less  than  the  negroes  have  done  in  thirty, 
Spain  rose  into  world-power,  dominated  the  European  Conti- 
nent, shook  England's  throne  to  its  base,  broke  the  Turkish 
scimitar  in  the  great  sea-fight  of  Lepanto,  evolved  a  splendid 
literature,  reached  the  highest  development  in  the  Fine  Arts, 
launched  Columbus  upon  his  voyage  into  unknown  seas  to 
test  the  suggestion  of  another  Latin — Toscanelli — and  thus 
took  the  first  daring  step  in  that  marvelous  chapter  of  Dis- 
covery whose  sober  facts  are  grander  and  stranger  than 
Romance. 

Has  the  learned  Doctor  ever  studied  the  history  of  Mexico — 
the  Latin  country  south  of  us? 

Since  a  foreign  yoke  was  thrown  off  and  Mexico  "found 
herself, "  what  country  has  made  nobler  progress? 

The  negro  in  Santo  Domingo  has  had  a  hundred  years  of 
freedom;  Mexico  scarce  half  so  many;  yet  compare  the  Mexico 
of  today  with  the  Santo  Domingo  of  today.  Left  to  them- 
selves, the  Latins  of  Mexico  have  built  up  a  magnificent  civili- 
zation. 

Left  to  themselves,  the  negroes  of  Santo  Domingo  have 
destroyed  what  the  French  had  already  built. 

In  Mexico  conditions  get  better,  year  after  year. 

In  Santo  Domingo  conditions  grow  worse,  year  after  year. 

If  the  learned  Doctor  wants  to  make  a  study  in  contrasts, 

let  him  first  read  "Where  Black  Rules  White,"  by  Hesketh 

Prichard,  and  then  read  "The  Awakening  of  a  Nation,"  by 

Charles  F.  Lummis,  and  I  venture  to  say  that  some  of  his 

cocky  self-complacency  as  to  the  superiority  of  the  negroes 

over  the  whites  will  ooze  out  of  him. 

****** 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary.  Etc. 


325 


As  to  Italy— can  it  be  that  Italy  lias  clone  less  in  a  thousand 
years  than  the  negroes  have  done  in  thirty. 

The  greatest  man  that  ever  lived  was  of  Italian  extraction. 
Taine  says  that  Xapoleon  was  a  true  Italian  in  character  and 
intellect.  If  that  be  true,  then  the  two  greatest  men  the  world 
ever  saw  were  Italians.  Wherever  the  civilized  man  lives  today 
his  environments,  his  thoughts,  his  ideals,  his  achievements  are 
more  or  less  influenced  by  the  life  and  work  of  Caesar  and 
Xapoleon. 

If  any  two  men  may  be  said  to  have  created  the  material 
modern  world  those  two  Latins  did  it. 

If  modern  Europe  is  any  one  mam  it  is  Xapoleon.  His  laws, 
schools — social,  political,  financial,  educational  institutions — 
have  wrung  from  rulers  ever  since,  the  homage  of  imitation. 

In  literature  how  illustrious  is  Italy ! 

It  was  Petrarch  who  was  "the  Columbus  of  a  new  spiritual 
atmosphere,  the  discoverer  of  modern  culture." 

It  was  he  who  broke  away  from  monkish  medievalism, 
created  the  humanistic  impulse,  treated  "man  as  a  rational 
being  apart  from  theological  determination,"  modernising 
literature. 

The  "short  story"  writers  of  fiction— Edgar  Poe.  Guy  de 
Maupassant  and  Kipling — had  their  teacher  in  Boccaccio  and 
his  novella. 

Modern  history  traces  its  methods,  its  spirit  and  its  form  to 
Villain,  Guicciardini,  and  that  wonderful  type  of  Latin  genius 
Machiaevelli. 

The  whole  world  goes  to  school  to  the  Latins! 

Xo  painter  hopes  to  excell  Correggio.  Paul  Veronese.  Anto- 
nio Allegro.  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  Tintoretto.  Valasquez. 
Murillo.  Raphael.  Titian.  Giorgione,  and  Michael  Angelo.  Xo 
sculptor  expects  to  eclipse  Xiccolo  of  Pisa.  Giovanni.  Orcagni. 
Verocchio.  Torrigiano.  Luca  del  la  Eobbia.  Michael  Angelo. 
and  Canovax. 

Xo  worker  in  gold,  silver  and  bronze  believes  he  can  surpass 
Ghiberti.  Cellini  and  Donatello. 

Architects  the  world  over  despair  of  rivaling  Alberti,  Bram- 
ante.  Giulo  Romano.  Palladio. 

These  masters  were  masters  to  their  own  generation,  four 
and  five  hundred  years  ago :  they  have  been  masters  ever  since  : 
they  are  masters  still. 

TVherever  civilization  extends  its  frontiers  these  deathless 
Latins  are  in  the  van — teaching  what  Truth  and  Beauty  are. 
refining  the  thoughts,  elevating  the  ideals,  improving  the 
methods,  inspiring  the  efforts  of  man. 

The  negroes  have  done  more  tlvan  this,  and  in  thirty  years? 

Absurd ! 


326  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 

You  had  forgotten  the  Renaissance,  hadn't  you,  Doctor? 

Asia  was  decaying,  Africa  was  in  its  normal  state  of 
savagery,  Europe  lay  torpid  under  the  weight  of  ignorance 
and  superstition.  Where  learning  existed  at  all  its  spirit  was 
dull,  its  form  heavy,  its  progress  fettered  by  ancient  canons 
and  cumbrous  vestments. 

Suddenly  the  Angel  of  Light — her  face  a  radiance,  her 
presence  an  inspiration — puts  a  silver  trumpet  to  her  lips  and 
blows,  blows,  till  all  the  world  of  white  men  hears  the  thrilling 
notes. 

And  lo!  there  is  a  resurrection!  What  was  best  in  the  learn- 
ing of  the  past  becomes  young  again. 

Literature  springs  to  life,  throws  off  antiquated  dress,  and 
takes  its  graceful  modern  form.  The  fine  arts  flourish  as  never 
before;  the  canvas,  the  marble,  the  precious  metal,  feel  the 
subtle  touch  of  the  eager  artist,  and  give  birth  to  beauty  which 
is  immortal.  The  heavy  prison-castle  of  the  Frank,  the 
Goth,  the  Norman,  the  Anglo-Saxon,  retires  abashed  before 
the  elegant,  airy,  poetic  palace  of  the  Renaissance. 

Nor  does  the  revival  of  learning  limit  itself  to  literature, 
architecture;  to  religion,  to  education. 

Whence  came  the  Renaissance,  Doctor  Washington?  Whence 
came  architecture,  painting  and  sculpture?  It  extends  to  law, 
to  commerce,  to  agriculture,  that  mighty  revival  of  intellectual 
splendor  which  still  influences  the  world.  From  the  Latin 
race,  which  you  affect  to  despise. 

Italy  led  the  modern  world  in  almost  everything  which  we 
call  civilization — she  is  today  one  of  the  world's  most  inspir- 
ing teachers,  nor  will  her  power  for  good  be  gone  till  the 
Christian  religion  is  repudiated,  the  voice  of  music  hushed, 
the  wand  of  literature  broken,  the  force  of  law  defied,  the 
witchery  of  art  lost  to  the  minds,  the  hearts  and  the  souls  of 
men. 

And  yet  Doctor  Washington  asserts,  to  one  audience  after 
another,  that  those  glorious  achievements  of  a  thousand  years, 
are  exceeded  by  what  the  negroes  have  done  in  thirty  years ! 

From  the  Latin,  England  took  her  religious  organization, 
as  Germany  and  Austria  and  France  had  done.  Through  the 
Latin,  the  classic  literature  of  Greece  and  earlier  Rome  came 
into  the  Modern  world — an  eternal  debt  which  we  owe  mainly 
to  Petrarch. 

The  Bourbon  kings  imported  from  Italy  the  architects, 
painters,  sculptors,  landscape  gardeners,  who  laid  upon  uncouth 
feudal  France  the  rich  mantle  of  Italian  beauty. 

It  was  the  Latin  who  taught  modern  Europe  how  to  farm, 
how  to  irrigate,  how  to  engrave,  how  to  make  paper  from  rags, 


Sketches  :  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


327 


how  to  bridge  the  rivers,  how  to  pave  the  streets,  how  to  make 
canals. 

Some  of  Shakespeare's  plays  are  elaborations  and  drama- 
tizations of  Italian  novellas.  Chaucer,  the  father  of  English 
poetry, — frankly  copied  from  the  Italian  model. 

Milton  had  Dante  for  a  pioneer.  Spencer  had  Ariosto,  and 
Byron's  best  work  is  in  the  Italian  form. 

I  presume.  Doctor,  that  at  this  season  of  the  year  you  are 
copying  the  style  of  the  white  man,  and  that  you  are  wearing 
a  straw  hat. 

Well,  the  Latins  taught  us  how  to  make  straw  hats. 

I  presume  that  you  recognize  the  value  of  glass — one  of 
whose  hundreds  of  uses  is  to  show  you  how  you  look. 

Well,  the  Latin  taught  us  how  to  make  glass. 

I  presume  that  you  realize  how  much  the  modern  world, 
during  the  last  thousand  years,  has  been  indebted  to  the 
modern  ship. 

Well,  the  Latin  taught  the  Anglo-Saxon  how  to  build 
modern  ships. 

I  presume  you  appreciate  good  rice,  Doctor. 

Well,  the  seed  of  the  heavy  upland  rice  which  we  have  in 
this  country  was  brought  out  of  Italy  in  the  pockets  of  Thomas 
Jefferson — gentleman-smuggler  in  that  instance. 

I  presume  you  will  wear  pink  silk  undergarments  this  season 
as  usual,  won't  you.  Doctor  \ 

Well  the  Latin  taught  modern  Europe  how  to  make  and  use 
silk. 

And  remember  that  the  Latin  took  the  clumsy  musical 
instruments  of  the  ancient  world  and  fashioned  them  into  the 
perfect  forms  of  the  present  time ;  and  that  the  Italians,  whom 
you  scorn,  had  created  the  violin  while  your  race  was  "rattling 
the  bones"  and  gradually  climbing  toward  the  "cake-walk." 

I  must  assume,  Doctor,  that  you  recognize  the  vast  benefit 
to  the  world  of  steam  applied  to  navigation. 

Well,  had  you  been  in  Barcelona,  in  the  year  1543,  you 
might  have  seen  the  Spanish  Captain,  Blasco  de  Garay,  giving 
to  the  Emperor.  Charles  Y.«  and  his  court  the  most  remarkable 
exhibition  of  a  ship  of  200  tons  being  driven  over  the  water  by 
steam  power — a  boiler  and  wheels  being  used  for  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  the  world  to  navigate  a  vessel. 

What  has  the  negro  in  these  United  States  been  doing  for 
the  last  thirty  years.  Doctor? 

COPYING  THE  WHITE  MA X.   That's  all. 

He  has  simply  been  imitating,  as  best  he  could,  the  dress, 
the  talk,  the  manners,  the  methods,  the  work  of  the  whites. 

The  Latin  whites  originated  a  civilization;  the  negroes  are 


328  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


copying  one.  Is  there  no  difference  between  the  higher  genius 
which  conceives  and  the  lower  talent  which  copies? 

It  required  the  genius  of  Raphael  to  conceive  and  paint 
"The  Transfiguration."  Any  ordinary  artist  can  make  a  fair 
copy  of  it.  But  does  any  one  compare  the  copyist  with  the 
original  artist?  It  required  the  genius  of  Sangallo  and 
Michael  Angelo  to  rear  St.  Peter's  at  Rome :  any  well-educated 
architect  of  today  might  rear  its  duplicate.  But  would  that 
make  the  modern  architect  equal  to  the  two  Italian  masters  ? 

Ten  thousand  negro  men  and  women  may  be  able  to  sit  down 
at  the  piano  and  render  Verdi's  "II  Trovatore,"  but  does  that 
entitle  the  negroes  to  class  themselves  with  the  Italian  com- 
poser ? 

My  thought  is  this — the  negro,  assisted  in  every  possible 
way  by  the  whites,  is  copying  the  ways  and  learning  the  arts 
of  the  white  man :  but  the  fact  that  he  can  learn  to  read  the 
white  man's  books  does  not  make  him  the  equal  of  the  white 
race  which  produced  the  booh.  The  fact  that  he  may  learn 
from  us  how  to  practice  law  or  medicine,  does  not  make  him 
equal  to  the  white  race  which  created  the  code  of  laws  and  the 
science  of  medicine.  It  may  have  required  a  thousand  years 
for  us  to  learn  that  which  we  can  teach  him-  in  one  year,  but 
the  point  is  that  the  negro,  in  his  native  home,  had  just  as 
much  time  and  opportunitv  to  evolve  a  civilization  as  we  had, 
A  KT)  TIE  DTD  NOT  DO  IT. 

Let  me  repeat  to  3^011,  Doctor,  the  unvarnished  truth — for  it 
may  do  you  good  : 

The  advance  made  by  your  race  in  America  is  the  reflection 
of  the  white  man's  civilization.  Just  that  and  nothing  more. 
The  negro  lives  in  the  light  of  the  white  man's  civilization  and 
reflects  a  part  of  that  light. 

He  imitates  an  example  kept  before  his  eyes;  copies  models 
never  out  of  his  sight ;  echoes  the  words  the  white  man  utters ; 
patterns  after  the  manners  and  the  methods  of  the  whites 
around  him,  and  thus  reflects  our  civilization. 

He  has  originated  nothing,  and  if  the  copy,  the  pattern,  the 
example  were  taken  away  he  Avould  fall  back  here  as  he  did  in 
Haiti. 

He  has  never  either  evolved  or  sustained  a  civilization  of  his 
own. 

Fotunately  for  the  Afro- American,  he  finds  himself  better 
situated  than  his  brethren  elsewhere.  In  Africa  and  in  Haiti, 
they  have  to  scuffle  for  themselves.    Result — barbarism  . 

In  America  he  swells  the  ranks  of  civilization's  army,  and 
he  has  to  go  forward.  We  not  only  support  him  with  aid  of 
all  sorts,  we  not  only  give  him  daily  precept  and  example,  but 
we  compel  him  to  lead  a  better  life  than  he  would  live  in 


Sketches  :  Historical.  Literary,  Etc. 


329 


Africa  and  Haiti.  This  compulsion  is  of  two  kinds,  the  fear  of 
punishment  and  the  hope  of  reward — thns  enlisting  two  of  the 
most  powerful  passions  of  the  human  being. 

It  should  be  significant  to  Dr.  Washington  that  the  only 
portion  of  his  race  which  has  ever  made  any  development  is 
that  which  has  the  vast  advantage  of  .being  sustained, 
encouraged,  taught,  led  and  coerced  by  the  whites  among  whom 
they  live. 

Not  long  ago  a  negro  preacher  whose  self -appreciation  was 
as  great  as  that  of  Dr.  Washington,  went  out  to  Liberia  to 
subdue  the  heathen,  in  the  home  of  the  negro  race. 

The  heathen  were  not  subdued,  but  the  preacher  was.  He 
threw  off  his  store  clothes,  gave  a  whoop,  gathered  up  an  arm- 
ful  of  wives  and  broke  for  the  woods;  the  "Call  of  the  Wild" 
was  too  much  for  his  newly  soldered  civilization. 

Xow.  I  doirt  mean  to  say  that  Doctor  Washington  would 
relapse,  under  similar  circumstances:  but  when  I  hear  him 
call  his  new  race  Afro-Americans  and  listen  while  he  soberly 
tells  them  that  they  are  superior  to  the  whites.  I  beg  that  he 
will  remember  his  kin  across  the  sea.  his  brethren  in  Santo 
Domingo,  the  decadents  of  Liberia,  and  the  tens  of  thousands 
of  his  race  here  in  this  country  who  devoutly  believe  in  witch 
doctors,  in  ghosts,  in  the  conjure  bag.  and  in  the  power  of  one 
negro  to  undo  another  bv  the  mvsterious  but  invincible 
"Trick." 

Remember  this.  Doctor,  education  is  a  good  thing,  but  it 
never  did.  and  never  will,  alter  the  essential  character  of  a  m-an 
or  a  race. 

Of  course.  Doctor,  if  you  think  your  race  the  equal  of  ours, 
you  have  the  right  to  say  it.    It's  a  free  country,  you  know. 

But.  really,  you  ought  not  to  "crowd  the  monkey"  by  putting 
m  a  claim  for  superiority. 

Such  a  claim  does  your  race  no  good. 

It  may  do  them  harm.  It  may  cultivate  a  spirit  of  truculent 
self— assertion  which  even  vour  warmest  admirers.  North  and 
South,  might  find  it  hard  to  tolerate. 

In  the  "History  of  Civilization."  Buckle  says : 
"Above  all  this,  there  is  a  far  higher  movement ;  and  as  the 
tide  rolls  on.  now  advancing,  now  receding,  there  is.  amid 
endless  fluctuations,  one  thing,  and  one  alone,  which  endures 
forever.  The  actions  of  bad  men  produce  only  temporary  evil, 
the  actions  of  good  men  only  temporary  good;  and  eventually 
the  good  and  the  evil  altogether  subside,  are  neutralized  by 
subsequent  generations,  absorbed  by  the  incessant  movement 
of  future  ages.  But  the  discoveries  of  great  men  never  leave 
us;  they  are  immortal,  they  contain  those  eternal  truths  which 
survive  the  shock  of  empires,  outlive  the  struggle  of  rival 


330  Sketches:  Historical,  Literary,  Etc. 


creeds  and  witness  the  decay  of  successive  religion.  All  these 
have  their  different  measures  and  their  different  standards; 
one  set  of  opinions  for  one  age,  another  set  for  another.  They 
pass  away  like  a  dream ;  they  are  as  a  fabric  of  a  vision,  which 
leaves  not  a  rack  behind.  The  discoveries  of  genius  alone 
remain:  it  is  to  them  we  owe  all  that  we  now  have,  they  are 
for  all  times;  never  young  and  never  old,  they  bear  the  seeds 
of  their  own  life,  they  flow  on  in  a  perennial  and  undying 
stream;  they  are  essentially  cumulative,  and  giving  birth  to 
the  additions  which  they  subsequently  receive,  they  thus 
influence  the  most  distant  posterity,  and  after  the  lapse  of 
centuries  produce  more  effect  than  they  were  able  to  do  even  at 
the  moment  of  their  promulgation." 
Noble  lines ! 

And  amid  these  "discoveries  of  genius"  to  which  "we  owe  all 
that  we  now  have,"  bearing  the  seeds  of  intellectual  life  and 
improvement  to  "the  most  distant  posterity"  what  treasures 
are  richer  than  those  which  the  Latin  brings? 

Architecture,  Agriculture,  Manufactures,  Commerce,  Civil 
Engineering,  Finance,  Legislation,  Religious  Organization, 
Sculpture,  Painting,  Music,  Literature,  Science,  the  wedding 
of  the  Fine  Arts  to  Religion — in  each  and  every  one  of  these 
fields  his  genius  has  been  creative  and  masterful. 

Upon  our  civilization  the  Latin  has  imposed,  as  an  everlast- 
ing blessing,  an  imperishable  Public  Debt. 

What  does  civilization  owe  the  negro? 

Nothing ! 

Nothing! 7 

NOTHING!  !! 


FJ 


Date  Due 


MS  3^ 

Form  335— 15M— 7-36— S 


818.59      W34SS  350741 
Watson 

Sfcetche s :  gist or leal, 

H         DATE  ISSUED  TO 

I      a/'  £ur~  \ 

 :  6oo/f    .  ! 

' — i_  H 


816.59      W34SS  350741 


